PLASTICS AND HEALTH IMPACTS - Plastics and Environmental Sustainability - page 341

Table 8.1 The Embedded Energy and GWP of Selected Packaged
Food Items (1 Kg Portions)
Source: Williams and Wikström (2011).
Food item Ketchup Bread Cheese Beef
Energy (MJ/kg of food) F 11

7.8 38 48

Energy (MJ for package) T 5.7 0.77 0.65 3.1

Ratio T/F 0.53 0.10 0.02 0.07

GWP (kg CO 2 equiv./kg
food) F*

790 610 8500 14000

GWP (kg CO 2 equiv./
package) T*

260 28 44 150

Ratio T*/F* 0.33 0.05 0.01 0.01

Plastic material used in
packaging

PP,
LDPE

LDPE,
PS a

LDPE,
PA

PA, LDPE,
EVOH b

Data specific to the types of primary and secondary packaging used in retail
products at a selected retail location.

a Plastic closure tag.
b Ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer film.

The parameters of interest in Table 8.1 are the ratio of the energy demand
for package and contents (T/F) and the ratio of GWP for the same (T′/F′).
The carbon footprint is indirectly related to the embedded energy of the
package. For items such as cheese or beef, the energy cost of the package
is only 2 or 7% of that of the food item. The carbon emission attributable
to package is also only around 1%, making the package a modest and very
reasonable investment to ensure optimal shelf life and consumer safety.
By contrast, the ketchup package, the multilayer plastic bottle, takes over
50% of the energy it takes to manufacture the contents (and a third of
the carbon footprint as well). LCA studies that compare different beverage
packages should be evaluated with caution as transportation energy is often
responsible for the significant differences between the choices compared.
In general, using larger plastic packages (bulk packaging) for food results
in a smaller environmental footprint (Pasqualino et al., 2011). Given the