Cited by 115Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

The Role of Household Food Waste in Comparing Environmental Impacts of Packaging Alternatives

Silvenius, Frans, Grönman, Kaisa, Katajajuuri, Juha-Matti, Soukka, Risto, Koivupuro, Heta-Kaisa, Virtanen, Yrjö·2014·Packaging Technology and Science

Abstract

This paper examines the environmental impacts of food waste and the influence that packaging alternatives can have on causing food waste. This paper presents the results of three life cycle assessment case studies on packed food products. The life cycle assessments were conducted for ham, dark bread and Soygurt drink (fermented soy-based drink). In each case study, the environmental impacts of the products were assessed with different assumptions about the packaging sizes and alternative materials. The studies especially considered the environmental impacts resulting from food waste generated by consumers as a function of the variable packaging options. The food waste of other parts of the production chain of the studied products was also taken into account. A consumer survey was carried out to estimate the amounts of product waste generated in Finnish households connected to the three investigated products. The environmental impacts of the food products, household food waste and packaging were modelled by scenarios with varying rates of household food waste and different waste management options. The results indicated that the significance of the production and post-consumer life of packaging was relatively low for climate change, eutrophication and acidification, in comparison with the production chain of the ham, dark bread and Soygurt. According to the results, packaging solutions that minimize the waste generation in households as well as in distribution and retail will lead to the lowest environmental impacts of the entire product-packaging chain. Therefore, it is important to design packages that protect the food properly and allow the consumer to use the product fully. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pts.2032

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silvenius, F., Grönman, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Soukka, R., Koivupuro, H.-K., & Virtanen, Y.
Affiliations
  • Agrifood Research Finland (FI)
  • Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (FI)
Corresponding author
Silvenius, Frans
Venue
Packaging Technology and Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06-28
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
277-292
ISSN
0894-3214 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1767726528
Cited by
115
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2
FWCI
8.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Packaging Technology and Science (publishedVersion)
  • Jukuri (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
household food waste, food packaging alternatives, life cycle assessment, ham, packaging size, packaging materials, waste management, consumer food waste, climate change, eutrophication, acidification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review