Vegetables in the can or jar and deepfreeze (2 nd and 3 rd grades)

There are different LCA studies abroad that are available on vegetables in these various packaging options and processing systems: for carrots (Ligthart, Ansems & Jetten, 2005); and for spinach and green beans in various packaging systems (Broekema & Blonk, 2010).

Environmental studies on the subject in Flanders are not known. In this part, we provide a description of the results of the Dutch study for green beans and use the applicability of these results for the market in Flanders. The scope of this study is from cultivation up to and including preparation by the consumer. The functional unit is per kg prepared product. According to variants that were offered in the Dutch study are discussed here more closely as well as the results on climate impact. A few of the products from the input parameters that have a large influence on the results and the mutual differences are reproduced in the following table.

1st grade (fresh) 2^nd grade 3^rd grade

2/ Electricity (kWh/ha) 2500 1250 – 8000 –

3/ Natural Gas - 56364 –

Table 12: Inventory of LCA study on string beans Broekema & Blonk, 2010

Relation between losses in the chain and packaging

76/116 Food loss and packaging

Losses in the various steps of the chain are considered, distinct from plate-related losses after the preparation by the consumer. The scope of the study is up to and including the prepared product. In the study, it is not literally discussed regarding the food losses in the ‘agriculture and horticulture’ phases and ‘processing’, but in the inventory data this is an aspect of the ‘yield’

(ton/ha) and of the ‘ton output per ton input’ with processing. Hereby it is interesting that the yield per hectare, for the same product of green beans from cultivation, is higher with the processed and deep-freeze vegetables than by fresh vegetables (see table 12 input parameters, row with reference number 1). In the processing phase the same input/output factor is used for all systems. Per ton input of green beans, this yields 0,85 tons of product. (See table 12 input parameters, row with reference number 6). Fall-out during transport steps is considered minimal with cooled transport and one goes from here that the transportation, by which the risk exists that the products do not stay cooled, is well organised. In the supermarket phase, there is 5%

fall-out of fresh green beans, and only 1% fall-out of processed and deep-freeze green beans.

(See table 12 input parameters, row with reference number 10).

The study considers that the loss at the consumer during storage is negligible (WRAP, 2008). At the same time, however, one does accept that the packaging size can indeed have an influence on the loss at the consumer level. With packaging that is too large, there is loss. With

preservatives this can play a bigger role than with fresh or deep-freeze because the content of preservatives, once opened, is very limited in terms of expiration time. The content of a deep-freeze packaging can, in principle, also be prepared in separate, smaller portions at different times.

The study considers the same energy consumption (see table, column 14 ‘Natural Gas’) for the preparation by the consumer at home. Green beans of the 2nd and 3rd grades have, however, already undergone a heated treatment in the industry and thus the consumer at home can prepare the beans with less energy consumption in a short time.

Results

The general conclusion of this Dutch study (Broekema, 2010) is that during the season (August up to and including September), fresh green beans from the soil and cultivated, have the lowest climate impact. The climate impact of fresh green beans from greenhouses is a factor of 4—5 times higher, for more than 75% attributed to the usage of natural gas during cultivation. To what degree the figures are related to representative energy consumption for greenhouses in

Flanders, with a high portion of CHP, for example, is not clear (see table input parameters, rows with references 2 and 3). From out this viewpoint, the results must certainly be discerned and further research on this is recommended.

The impact of imported green beans is primarily related to the cultivation yield in these countries of origin and the transport. The scenario with beans from Kenya has a very high climate impact, for more that 80% attributed to transport via aeroplane. Beans from Kenya (outside of season) are to be found in the store shelves in Belgium, but these are not imported by aeroplane, but by ship. The scenario with beans from Senegal, imported by boat, do not differ much from those from Spain, transported with lorries. Despite the greater distance, transport per boat is relatively more efficient in comparison with transport on the roads. The yield in lands such as Senegal and Kenya is very low in comparison with Holland. The yield in greenhouses is also much higher than in comparison with local cultivation in open-field.

Fresh, or 1st grade, by the 2nd and 3rd grades, processed and deep-freeze. The climate impact from the can, jar and deep-freeze is at the same level. The 2nd grade has a higher climate impact during the processing, but no impact related to the cold storage. Conversely, the 3rd grade, deep-freeze has a higher climate impact because they are stored in cold storage. Fevia points out that in principle, a difference is in the energy consumption for the preparation:

products in cans or jars already have undergone a heated treatment and shall be able to be prepared faster and with less energy consumption. This is now presumed (see table input

78/116 Food loss and packaging

Figure 27: Climate impact kg CO2e/ton of green beans for the

Dutch market (Broekema, et al., 2010).

parameters, row with reference number 14). Another point is the addition of the packaging and the difference between Holland and Flanders.

The production of glass and metal packaging has a rather much larger climate impact than the PE sacks for fresh green beans. In the case of glass and can, the addition is 50-60% to the climate impact, and in the case of PE sacks, the addition is only 1%. The addition of the packaging on the climate impact is estimated to be lower in Flanders because of the higher recycling percentages for glass and metal. The figures for packaging in the study are based on the study by Sevenster, et al., 2007. In the study, in the case of glass, a recycling percentage of 78% and recycled content of 59% are used. The surplus leaves out the difference between primary usage and secondary. These figures are lower than the current recycling percentages for the market in Flanders: this is more than 100% for glass and 98% for metal packaging. (Fost Plus, 2013; see chapter 3.1.2.2). Through these higher recycling percentages, the greenhouse gas emissions from these types of packaging are reduced by 25—40%! This results in a decrease from the total climate impact of green beans in the 2nd grade (jars and preserves) by about 12—13%.