Nowadays, a lot of effort goes into promoting food loss and waste reduction and this often without estimating the actual effectiveness and resource efficiency of different options concerning environmental impact reduction. In this study, we aim to go beyond intuitive choices on matters visible to the consumer: packaging in the supermarket and actions at household level for those apples the consumer no longer wishes to eat fresh. The intuitive choices could be phrased as: "go for large cardboard packages” and “valorise your apples into apple sauce or apple chips if they no longer appear crispy fresh, rather than throwing them in the bin”. For our analysis, we build on our previously published study on the environmental impact of the Belgian apple-chain. First, we compare different packaging materials (only cardboard, cardboard—plastic combination or only plastic) and packaging sizes (per 4 or per 6) to assess the impact of reduced losses at the shop. Second, we studied which of two valorization steps (apple sauce or apple chips) should be recommended to consumers who might elsewise dispose of those apples that no longer appear crispy fresh to them. For the packaging, the life cycle assessment showed that packaging apples in plastic per 4 could have beneficial effects, but proper waste management should be assured. At the household level, the environmental benefits of valorizing waste apples strongly depend on how energy intensive the needed kitchen appliance is. The ranking of the different options was however similar across the various impact categories considered. In general, making apple sauce in a microwave was the preferable option compared to treating the apple as waste, while making apple chips was not preferable. The results illustrate that it is important to go beyond intuition when considering the best food loss and waste options and that proper life cycle assessment calculations are essential to do this.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
