CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 143Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Mapping the Influence of Food Waste in Food Packaging Environmental Performance Assessments

Open access
Heller, Martin C., Selke, Susan E. M., Keoleian, Gregory A.·2019·Journal of Industrial Ecology
DOI 10.1111/jiec.12743
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Summary: Scrutiny of food packaging environmental impacts has led to a variety of sustainability directives, but has largely focused on the direct impacts of materials. A growing awareness of the impacts of food waste warrants a recalibration of packaging environmental assessment to include the indirect effects due to influences on food waste. In this study, we model 13 food products and their typical packaging formats through a consistent life cycle assessment framework in order to demonstrate the effect of food waste on overall system greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and cumulative energy demand (CED). Starting with food waste rate estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we calculate the effect on GHG emissions and CED of a hypothetical 10% decrease in food waste rate. This defines a limit for increases in packaging impacts from innovative packaging solutions that will still lead to net system environmental benefits. The ratio of food production to packaging production environmental impact provides a guide to predicting food waste effects on system performance. Based on a survey of the food LCA literature, this ratio for GHG emissions ranges from 0.06 (wine example) to 780 (beef example). High ratios with foods such as cereals, dairy, seafood, and meats suggest greater opportunity for net impact reductions through packaging‐based food waste reduction innovations. While this study is not intended to provide definitive LCAs for the product/package systems modeled, it does illustrate both the importance of considering food waste when comparing packaging alternatives, and the potential for using packaging to reduce overall system impacts by reducing food waste.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jiec.12743

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation
    § Packaging Environmental Performance · p. 2

    The paper's literature review found that the food-to-packaging GHGE ratio varies widely across food products, ranging from 0.06 for wine to 780 for beef.

    “Based on a survey of the food LCA literature, this ratio for GHGE ranges from 0.06 (wine example) to 780 (beef example).”
    • Also stated in: § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 12 · plain
      “Figure 2 presents the Food To Packaging GHGE (FTPGHGE) ratio for a large number of food products, aggregated by food type.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 16

    The FTP ratio provides a general indication of how food waste reduction affects total system environmental impact.

    “In Figures 4 and 5, the FTP ratio offers a general orienting trend to the role of food waste reduction in total system environmental impact.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § Study limitations · p. 18

    The hypothetical waste rate reduction scenarios presented in the study begin to map the opportunity space for packaging innovations that reduce food waste and net system impacts, even when packaging system impacts increase.

    “The hypothetical waste rate reduction scenarios presented here begin to map out the opportunity space available for packaging innovations that lead to reduced food waste and net system impact reduction, even when impacts of the packaging system increase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA retail- and consumer-level food waste rates are appropriate baseline estimates for the foods and packaging configurations assessed.
  • Findingown data
    § Study limitations · p. 17

    For meats (turkey, pork, beef), LAFA retail loss rates are close to the empirical values collected from the retail partner.

    “Meats (turkey, pork, beef) are the exception, where LAFA retail loss rates are close to the empirical values collected from our retail partner.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 13

    The model calculates the increase in packaging system GHGE that would be offset by a 10% reduction in retail waste, consumer waste, or both.

    “Figure 4 shows this increase in GHGE associated with the packaging system that would break even with 10% reductions in retail waste rate, consumer waste rate, or both.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA food commodity-level waste rates are adequate estimates of product-specific retail and consumer food waste rates for the foods modeled.
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 12

    Cereals, dairy, fish and seafood, and meats have large food-to-packaging GHGE ratios relative to other food types.

    “cereals, dairy, fish and seafood, and meats have large FTP ratios relative to other food types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 13

    The food-to-packaging GHGE ratio by itself does not determine how the system responds to less food waste; the starting waste rate also matters.

    “this ratio alone is not predictive of system response to a reduction in food waste rate; the magnitude of the baseline waste rate is also important.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA food commodity-level waste rates are adequate estimates of product-specific retail and consumer food waste rates for the foods modeled.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 13

    The model shows that when the food-to-packaging GHGE ratio is very low, only small rises in packaging impacts can be offset by cutting food waste; when the ratio is high, much larger packaging impact increases are acceptable if they reduce food waste.

    “at very low FTPGHGE, limited increases in packaging impacts are permitted with food waste reduction. At high FTPGHGE, large increases in packaging impacts can be tolerated if they lead to such food waste reductions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA food commodity-level waste rates are adequate estimates of product-specific retail and consumer food waste rates for the foods modeled.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § Study limitations · p. 17

    Available estimates for cooking losses with meats depend strongly on specific cuts and cooking methods, and for beef they do not appear compatible with LAFA reported losses.

    “We have attempted to account for these cooking losses with meats, but available estimates are strongly dependent on specific cuts of meat and cooking methods and, in the case of beef at least, do not appear to be compatible with LAFA reported losses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 12

    In Figure 3, foods on the left have relatively small GHGE from producing the consumed portion compared with other stages, while foods on the right are dominated by food production impacts.

    “Thus, on the left are foods where GHGE from producing the consumed portion is small relative to the contribution from other stages (packaging, transport, accumulated food waste impacts). Foods on the right are dominated by food production impacts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 14

    Because spinach has a lower FTP ratio, its results are more sensitive to primary packaging weight, though a 20% perturbation still changes total impacts by less than 10%.

    “Due to the lower FTP ratio for spinach, the case is more sensitive to the weight of primary packaging, but still less than 10% change in total impacts from a 20% perturbation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA food commodity-level waste rates are adequate estimates of product-specific retail and consumer food waste rates for the foods modeled.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 13

    Non-renewable CED shows a pattern like GHGE, but food waste has a weaker effect, mainly due to energy embodied in packaging and agricultural emissions unrelated to fossil fuels.

    “A similar trend exists, but the influence of food waste is not as strong for non-renewable CED, largely because of the embodied energy in packaging materials (which does not present itself in GHGE) and the agricultural emissions not related to fossil fuel use (enteric methane and field-level N 2 O emissions).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 14

    For ground turkey in MAP packaging, agricultural production and processing are the largest contributors to total CED and GHGE, making these stages highly sensitive to parameter changes; a 20% change in agricultural production impact per kg produced 18% and 13% changes in system GHGE and CED, respectively.

    “Agricultural production and processing dominate the system contributions to total CED and GHGE in the turkey case (see Figures 3 and S1), and therefore show strong sensitivity to parameter perturbations (18% and 13% changes in system GHGE and CED, respectively, from 20% changes in agricultural production impact per kg).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA food commodity-level waste rates are adequate estimates of product-specific retail and consumer food waste rates for the foods modeled.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § Study limitations · p. 18

    For foods with small agricultural production burdens and small FTP ratios (e.g., leafy greens), net system impacts are sensitive to packaging production impacts; for foods with high FTP ratios (e.g., meats), food waste dominates the tradeoff with packaging impacts.

    “For some foods, such as leafy greens, where agricultural production burdens are small and FTP ratios as small, net system impacts are sensitive to packaging production impacts, whereas in other cases, such as meats, with high FTP ratios, food wastes dominate the tradeoff with packaging impacts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA retail- and consumer-level food waste rates are appropriate baseline estimates for the foods and packaging configurations assessed.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning
    § Study limitations · p. 17

    LAFA food commodity categories are generic.

    “First is the generic nature of food commodity categories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 14

    Spinach system impacts are much less sensitive to agricultural production GHGE and CED, and more sensitive to the weight of primary packaging.

    “Total system impacts for spinach show much lower sensitivity to agricultural production GHGE and CED and increased sensitivity to primary packaging weight.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 16

    Figure 2 gives a wider view of how FTPGHGE varies across food types, drawing on published food LCAs.

    “Figure 2 provides a broader perspective on the variability of FTPGHGE across food types, based on literature reported food LCAs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 14

    The spinach case also responds more to changes in food waste rates and to parameters tied to refrigeration impacts.

    “The spinach case is also more sensitive to changes in food waste rates and parameters that are associated with the impacts of refrigeration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA food commodity-level waste rates are adequate estimates of product-specific retail and consumer food waste rates for the foods modeled.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 13

    Because the gap in energy demand between food production and packaging production is narrower than the corresponding GHGE gap, FTP CED values are lower.

    “Because of these factors, the difference between energy demand for food production and energy demand for packaging production is smaller, resulting in lower values of FTP CED.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 13

    The exercise starts to map the room available for changes in packaging systems.

    “However, the exercise does begin to map out the space available for changes in packaging systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 15

    Other packaging attributes linked to food waste include resealability, ease of opening, gripping and dosing, and conveying food safety or freshness information.

    “Additional packaging attributes that can influence food waste include resealability , easy to: open, grip and dose, and communication of food safety/freshness information (Wikstrom et al. 2014; Lindh et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Wikstrom et al. 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lindh et al. 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Study limitations · p. 17

    These intelligent and responsive packaging technologies may likely offer additional means for packaging to reduce food waste, but also emphasize the need for LCA of the product/package system to assure net environmental benefits.

    “These technologies may likely offer additional means for packaging to reduce food waste, but also further emphasize the need for LCA of the product/package system to assure net environmental benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Study limitations · p. 18

    Trade-offs between consumers' desire for convenience, consumer perceptions of packaging, food waste generation, and whole product chain environmental impact have been explored by comparing ready-to-eat meals with meals prepared at home.

    “Trade-offs between consumers' desire for convenience, consumer perceptions of packaging, food waste generation and whole product chain environmental impact have also been explored by comparing ready-to-eat meals with meals prepared at home (Hanssen et al. 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hanssen et al. 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Study limitations · p. 17

    The relatively high consumer loss rate for turkey in LAFA likely reflects whole turkeys prepared for holidays and special occasions and may not reflect ground turkey products.

    “For example, the relatively high consumer loss rate for turkey likely reflects whole turkeys prepared for holidays and special occasions and may not be as reflective of the ground turkey products considered here.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Study limitations · p. 18

    Conducting household surveys can be costly and laden with methodological challenges.

    “Conducting household surveys can be costly and laden with methodological challenges (Edjabou et al. 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Edjabou et al. 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Study limitations · p. 17

    It is currently impossible to determine whether the gathered retail data reflect a more efficient retail business and whether LAFA data are more appropriate national averages for retail losses.

    “At this stage, it is impossible to determine whether our gathered data reflect a more efficient retail business and the LAFA data are more appropriate national averages for retail losses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § <heading level 1> Introduction · p. 13

    Because packaging changes may also affect processing, distribution, retail, disposal, and consumer behavior, the available space should be viewed as covering all these factors, not just packaging materials.

    “As changes in packaging would likely also influence processing, distribution, retail, disposal, and consumer-stage behaviors, this available 'space' should be considered conceptually as not just for packaging materials per se but for all of these associated factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Study limitations · p. 18

    This study provides a framework to evaluate environmental tradeoffs between package configurations and food waste that can also be used to explore other impacts such as water stress.

    “This study provides a framework to evaluate the environmental tradeoffs between package configurations and food waste that can also be used to explore other relevant impacts such as water stress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The USDA LAFA retail- and consumer-level food waste rates are appropriate baseline estimates for the foods and packaging configurations assessed.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Study limitations · p. 16

    Food product system eutrophication and water use impacts are expected to be dominated by agricultural production, while other impact categories such as acidification, ozone depletion, photochemical smog, and human health respiratory effects require case-by-case evaluation.

    “Speaking very generally, we can expect food product system eutrophication and water use impacts to be dominated by agricultural production; other categories such as acidification potential, ozone depletion potential, photochemical smog potential, and human health impacts such as respiratory effects will require case-by-case evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Study limitations · p. 18

    A growing body of information on consumer behavior and psychology regarding packaging and food waste provides a starting point for initiatives and packaging design aimed at reducing consumer-level food waste.

    “A growing body of information on consumer behavior and psychology with regard to both packaging and food waste provides a starting point for initiatives and packaging design aimed at reducing consumer-level food waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015; Stancu et al. 2016; Secondi et al. 2015; Neff et al. 2015; Martinho et al. 2015; Wikström et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stancu et al. 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Secondi et al. 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Study limitations · p. 17

    Date labeling schemes vary in terminology and application across regions and are largely misunderstood by industry and consumers, leading to significant unnecessary food waste.

    “Repeated analyses highlight the challenges presented by food date labeling schemes that vary in terminology and application from region to region, and are largely misunderstood by industry and consumers, leading to significant unnecessary food waste.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Newsome et al. 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Study limitations · p. 18

    A systems approach using life cycle assessment will help determine potential benefits and guide packaging design decisions.

    “A systems approach using life cycle assessment will help to determine the potential benefits and guide packaging design decisions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
27 of 27

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The USDA LAFA food commodity-level waste rates are adequate estimates of product-specific retail and consumer food waste rates for the foods modeled.

    “In this study, we rely on waste rates from USDA's LAFA dataset (USDA ERS 2013), provided at the food commodity level, as an estimate for product-specific waste rates (see Table 1).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The USDA LAFA dataset is the only known collection providing a consistent estimate of food losses across all food commodities in the U.S. diet.

    “This dataset is the only known collection that provides a consistent estimate of food losses across all food commodities in the U.S. diet”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    After correcting for cooking losses, USDA LAFA food loss rates are equivalent to food waste rates for the foods assessed.

    “USDA reports these as food loss rates, but after correcting for cooking losses, we consider them equivalent to food waste rates.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The USDA LAFA retail- and consumer-level food waste rates are appropriate baseline estimates for the foods and packaging configurations assessed.

    “We use food loss data from the USDA LAFA dataset as our baseline estimates of retail- and consumer-level food waste rates.”
4 of 4

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?

  • Natural dyes are susceptible to environmental factors such as light, heat, and pH, which can lead to color changes and reduced stability over time.

    “The susceptibility of natural dyes to environmental factors, such as light, heat, and pH, can also lead to color changes and reduced stability over time [8,9].”

    From EXPLOITING ECO-FRIENDLY NATURAL DYES FROM PLANT SOURCES: EXTRACTION AND DIVERSE APPLICATIONS (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Study limitations section (p. 17) discusses packaging indicators that respond to changes in a product or its environment, but does not discuss natural dyes. Searches for natural dyes, light, heat, pH, and color stability found no passage addressing the claimed susceptibility or loss of stability. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • From an environmental perspective, there is strong justification for adding more packaging material to meat and dairy products even when this only slightly reduces food waste.

    “For example, from an environmental perspective, there is a strong justification for adding more packaging material to meat and dairy products even when this only slightly reduces food waste (Heller et al., 2019;Wikstr€ om et al., 2019).”

    From Avoiding food becoming waste in households – The role of packaging in consumers’ practices across different food categories (2020) · cites this paper as Heller et al., 2019

  • The food packaging-environmental impact ratio varies widely among different products, and adding packaging material or reducing the packaging size is often justified, particularly for meat and milk products, because of the high environmental impact of those food products.

    “While the food packagingeenvironmental impact ratio varies widely among different products, adding packaging material or reducing the packaging size is often justified, but this is particularly true for meat and milk products, even if the ultimate reduction in food waste is small, because of the high environmental impact of those food products (Heller et al., 2019;Wikstr€ om et al., 2019).”

    From Avoiding food becoming waste in households – The role of packaging in consumers’ practices across different food categories (2020) · cites this paper as Heller et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2013, Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources Summary Report
  2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2013, Climate Change 2013. The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC
  3. Nielsen N., 2013, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Danish Organic Egg Production estimated via LCA Methodology
  4. Tassou S. A., 2012, Food transport refrigeration
  5. Thoma G., 2011, National Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine
  6. U.S. Department of Energy, 2014, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program For Consumer Products And Commercial And Industrial Equipment. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
  7. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013, 2009 Residental Energy Consumption Survey
  8. US EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2014, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Heller, M. C., Selke, S. E. M., & Keoleian, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Heller, Martin C.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-03-25
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
480-495
ISSN
  • 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9290
DOI
10.1111/jiec.12743
OpenAlex
W2794305086
Cited by
142
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Center for Packaging Innovation and Sustainability at Michigan State University
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
food waste, food packaging, environmental performance evaluation, greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative energy demand, life cycle assessment, indirect environmental impacts, food waste reduction, packaging alternatives, sustainable packaging

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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