Is food packaging harmful to the environment? A discussion of the direct and indirect influences of food packaging systems

Abstract

Packaging maintains quality and decreases food loss and waste (FLW); however, it creates environmental problems such as climate change. This review elucidates the contributions of packaging to the environmental impacts of the life cycle of foods and supports environmentally proper packaging that maintains the quality of foods and minimizes FLW. Many studies report that the food production stage is the most relevant process. This shows that additional production compensating for the FLW can increase the environmental burdens, and FLW reduction by packaging decreases the burden of the food life cycle. The lower the energy density of food (kcal/100 g) is, the greater the contribution of packaging. This supports decision making on which stages we should prioritize to minimize the environmental impacts. Food packaging systems requires environmentally optimized packaging that balances the direct (i.e., environmental burden for packaging production) and indirect (i.e., reduction in FLW and FLW-related environmental burden) influences.

Introduction

Food systems account for 20 % of the global land area, 70 % of the global water withdrawal area, 32 % of the worldwide energy consumption (Spang et al., 2019), and 19 % to 29 % of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the world (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Additionally, food demand is expected to increase by 60 % by 2050 in response to world population growth and consumption pattern changesⁱ⁾. Globally, food loss is estimated to account for up to one-third of the foods produced for human consumptionⁱⁱ⁾. The percentage of food loss and waste (FLW) differs among food products in various stages of the food supply chain, and that for fruits and vegetables is large due to their relatively short shelf life. (Chen et al., 2020).

Food packaging has many valuable functions (e.g., protecting packaged foods from physical, chemical, and biological changes; extending shelf life; and displaying product information) (Wohner et al., 2019; Kitazawa, 2021). Thus, packaging can help decrease FLW and FLW-related environmental impacts, such as climate change, which is influenced by increases in food production that compensate for FLW. However, packaging generates waste and GHG emissions during its production. To reduce FLW and promote sustainability, the European Commission established an action plan, “the European Green Deal,” to approximately halve GHG emissions by 2030 compared to those in 1990 and to encourage the efficient use of materials to achieve a clean and circular economyⁱⁱⁱ⁾. This plan propelled the reuse and recycling of packaging materials as a way to address and achieve these plans. Additionally, when reducing packaging-related GHG emissions, we need to consider the balance between the increase in the environmental impacts of packaging production and the decrease in the impacts of a food supply chain through FLW reduction by packaging (Sasaki et al., 2022a).

One countermeasure to address the FLW problem is to prolong the shelf life of products and develop a supply chain that ensures greater food safety (Realini and Marcos, 2014). Food safety is prioritized globally because highly perishable foods can immediately deteriorate or degrade unless processing, packaging, or storing are undertaken (Alves et al., 2023). Many researchers have studied packaging conditions for food safety (Nakamura et al., 2008; Baba et al., 2012; and Atallah et al., 2021). Packaging is often made of plastic, and plastic packaging is sometimes considered an adverse influence on the environment. The production of plastic materials is strongly associated with global primary energy and CO₂ emissions (Böröcz, 2023); material production (including packaging materials) accounts for 40 % of energy use and emissions (Hekkert et al., 2000). Thus, plastic packaging is often replaced with packaging made of other materials, e.g., paper, to decrease plastic consumption,

The environmental impact attributed to packaging can be assessed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) method, which is standardized by the ISO 14040 series. Many LCA studies have evaluated the impact of packaging on the life cycle of foods (Marco and Iannone, 2017; Boschiero et al., 2019; Matar et al., 2021). According to Kan and Miller (2022), packaging contributes less than 10 % of the environmental burden of the food life cycle; FLW and transportation are more important contributors. However, packaging for fruits has a greater environmental impact than packaging for other food categories. This is because the ratio of packaged fruit volume to packaging is lower, and a smaller ratio requires more packaging materials per functional unit (e.g., 1 kg) of food; thus, the environmental burdens of producing the required packaging materials for fruit are greater. Considering the large impact of packaging, a countermeasure to decrease this impact has received increased attention. Several studies have shown the environmental advantage of converting single-use packaging to reusable packaging (Lee and Xu, 2004; Raugei et al., 2009; Orikasa et al., 2014; Abejón et al., 2020). Abejón et al. (2020) found that reusable plastic packaging for fruits and vegetables has environmental advantages compared to single-use cardboard boxes; thus, they concluded that plastic packaging should not be absolutely avoided because plastic packaging can be the most environmentally friendly method in certain cases. However, while reusable packaging reduces the environmental burden during production, it can cause greater burdens than single-use packaging if more FLW is associated with it (Sasaki et al., 2022a). Many LCA reports on food packaging consider the environmental impact of packaging production (direct influence on the environment) but do not consider the quality of packaged products (including FLW) or the influence of FLW reduction via packaging on the environment (indirect influence), although protecting packaged foods is one of the major functions of packaging (Molina-Besch et al., 2019). The LCA of food packaging should address the trade-offs between a decrease in the environmental impact due to the introduction of reusable materials and an increase in the environmental impact due to additional FLW. Furthermore, the relationships between the direct and indirect influences of packaging in the optimization of food packaging systems should be environmentally balanced (Fig. 1). Therefore, in this review, we summarize the research results on the environmental sustainability of food packaging and discuss the reusability of plastic packaging from an environmental perspective. Additionally, we provide some points of view for future research directions.

Fig. 1

Balancing the direct and indirect influences of packaging on environment to produce environmentally friendly food packaging.

Hot Spot Analysis in a Food Supply Chain with Packaging

Environmentally relevant processes with large environmental impacts on food life cycles vary depending on the scenarios used for cultivation or consumption and the assessed impact categories (Soode et al., 2015; Prosapio et al., 2017). Thus, these processes must be identified in each targeted case study and scenario. Sasaki et al. (2020 and 2021) used established guidelines^iv) to carry out a hot spot analysis of the life cycle of strawberry and peach plants (during fresh product production (cultivation), packaging production, truck transportation, and product and packaging waste management stages) to identify environmentally relevant processes and suggested an effective plan for reducing environmental impacts. The cultivation stage was the most relevant stage in both life cycles, and the packaging stage was the second most relevant stage. Similarly, the contributions of the environmental burdens of the two stages to the environmental burden of the entire life cycle were 81.2 % to 99.1 % (cultivation) and 0.74 % to 9.3 % (packaging) in the life cycle of strawberry and 36.4 % to 89.4 % (cultivation) and 9.9 % to 29.9 % (packaging) in the peach life cycle. The transportation stage ratios varied based on the distance (0 km to 2 000 km), and the ratios reached 11.7 % and 21.0 % in the strawberry and peach life cycles, respectively. Other studies also reported a less significant contribution of packaging to packaged food production, e.g., the life cycle of bread (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999); semihard cheese (Berlin, 2002); ham, bread, and soygurt (Silvenius et al., 2014); and fresh milk (Manfredi et al., 2015). In these situations, the ratio was lower than 10 %. As indicated in these studies, the food production stage was the common hot spot among their life cycles and not the environmental burden from packaging production.

Differences in the processes of each case study require different approaches to reduce the life cycle environmental impact. According to previous studies (Yoshikawa et al., 2007; Orikasa et al., 2023), modal shifts (e.g., using trains or ships instead of trucks as a transportation method) reduce the environmental burdens of fruit transportation and the entire life cycle of fruits. This shift could be a useful strategy for decreasing transportation-related and life cycle environmental burdens because the contribution ratio of the transportation stage increases with distance and reaches 21.0 % in the life cycle (Sasaki et al., 2021). However, such shifts are not suitable for fruit transportation (Soode-Schimonsky et al., 2017) because they may prolong the period of transportation, cause transported fruits to deteriorate with the passage of time, and increase food losses during the supply chain; notably, food loss during transportation in the peach life cycle was reported to increase, as the fruit ripened with the passage of time (Sasaki et al., 2022b). However, this study obtained food loss data from artificially (experimentally) ripened peaches under certain storage times and temperature conditions. Thus, no study has evaluated the optimization of the modal shift method in the life cycle of fruits and vegetables from an environmental perspective or has considered the influence of ripening on the amount of food loss under different conditions, such as transport modes, times, and temperatures as far as we know. Thus, this topic should be studied in the future.

Potential for Reducing Environmental Burdens through Packaging and Modelling of the Relationship between FLW Reduction and Environmental Burdens

A reduction in FLW is needed to meet the demands of a growing population worldwide, protect food security, and decrease the need for additional food production as compensation for FLW. Moreover, such additional food production can greatly influence the environmental burden, as food production accounts for the largest environmental burden in the food life cycle (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999; Berlin, 2002; Silvenius et al., 2014; Manfredi et al., 2015). Sasaki et al. (2022a and 2022c) reported a decrease in the environmental burden of food production and the whole life cycle by means of FLW reduction via packaging, although producing packaging materials causes additional burdens on food production. This is because FLW reduction decreases the environmental burden of additional food production. Sasaki et al. (2020 and 2021) compared the environmental burdens of strawberry and peach life cycles in a packaging scenario to those in a nonpackaging scenario and showed that packaging can decrease the environmental burdens by up to 47.3 % and 95.8 %, respectively, in the strawberry and peach life cycles through FLW reduction via packaging. Conte et al. (2015) compared 4 types of packaging films for cheese with 6 types of headspace conditions and reported that a film providing the longest shelf life (75 days) reduced the burdens of the whole life cycle by 75.2 % compared to that providing a shorter shelf life (15 days). Wikström et al. (2014) evaluated 3 types of packaging for rice and yogurt and noted the importance of including packaging (reduction in FLW and environmental burden) in the assessment because different food waste levels cause different environmental impacts. Packaging at a 5 % food waste level reduced the environmental burden in the life cycle of rice and yogurt by approximately 17 % and 20 %, respectively, compared to that at a 20 % level (reduction ratios of 17 % and 20 % were assumed (calculated) by the authors). The common finding among these studies is that the ability of packaging to prolong the shelf life of foods and reduce FLW is an important factor for achieving an environmentally friendly outcome, i.e., a reduction in the environmental burden; it is more important than packaging production or disposal. Additionally, reducing FLW via packaging can be a better option for the environment.

Wikström et al. (2014) indicated that the influence of FLW reduction via packaging on the LCA results is more important in the life cycle of rice compared to that of yogurt. The environmental impacts of rice production and its entire life cycle are greater than those of yogurt production and its life cycle; thus, FLW reduction via packaging for rice has a greater overall impact than that for yogurt. In contrast, FLW reduction may be less important for decreasing the overall environmental burden of a food with a low burden for its production. In a study of carbonated drinks, packaging greatly contributed to the overall environmental impacts (from 49 % to 79 %, global warming potential [CO₂eq]) (Amienyo et al., 2013) because beverage ingredients have relatively low environmental impacts among food categories. Therefore, packaging production can remarkably influence the LCA results of foods with low environmental burdens, and the development of packaging conditions should be prioritized over decreases in FLW to effectively reduce environmental burdens of the entire life cycle. According to previous studies (on cheese, rice, yogurt, and carbonated drinks), the contribution of the environmental impact of food packaging production varies among foods and would depend on the energy density (kcal/100 g) of each food (Fig. 2). This reveals that the greater the density of food is, the greater the contribution of the food. These findings can be useful in categorizing foods as environmentally high or low contributors to their whole life cycle before conducting a detailed LCA. This approach can help packaging producers and developers avoid excessive environmental impacts in their production and development processes. We haven’t completely been able to conclude this finding from Fig. 2 yet due to the insufficient number of assessed studies (3 articles and 4 foods), and this should be discussed in future studies.

Fig. 2

Relationship between energy densities of each food and ratio of environmental burden of packaging production to that in the whole life cycle of food.

Error bar shows Standard division (correlation coefficient = −0.66)

^*The densities were referenced to a report of Ministry of education, culture, sports, science and technology, Japan^v). The value of goat milk cheese was substituted for that of sheep milk cheese due to lack of data.

**The ratios were calculated and averaged based on the results of Amienyo et al. (2013) (carbonated drinks), Conte et al. (2015) (sheep milk cheese), and Wikström et al. (2014) (rice and yogurt).

Sasaki et al. (2022a and 2022c) modelled the relationship between food loss reduction by packaging and environmental burdens to optimize packaging conditions that cause food losses but minimize the burden throughout the life cycle. They accurately predicted the environmental burdens at each food loss ratio in the strawberry life cycle (RMSE = 8.72 × 10⁻⁷−1.60 × 10⁻⁵ kg-CO₂eq for the impact of climate change) and the peach life cycle (RMSE = 5.14 × 10⁻⁸−1.42 × 10⁻⁷ kg-Sbeq for the impact of resource consumption). The same conclusion has been reached in different (strawberry and peach) studies: minimizing food loss does not minimize the environmental burdens of the whole life cycle; Roy et al. (2009) also reached the same conclusion by mathematical approach. Thus, considering the relationship between FLW reduction and the environmental burden of packaging production is important for developing packaging conditions and producing environmentally friendly packaging. Sasaki et al. (2022b) assessed the life cycle of ripened peaches with packaging and modelled the relationship as a straight line with a positive slope. Additionally, they evaluated the relationship between the slope of the straight line predicting the environmental burden at each food loss ratio and transportation distance (100 km to 2 000 km). The analyses revealed that the environmental burdens increased as the transportation distance increased, and an increase in the burden was detected at distances greater than 300 km. This showed that packaging with lower environmental burdens for its production is adequate for decrease in the environmental burdens throughout the whole life cycle for short-distance transportation (within 100 km in the case of this study). This is because the use of more packaging materials to reduce FLW may counter the reduction in the environmental burden through FLW reduction and instead increase the burden of the entire life cycle due to packaging production. Additionally, packaging with high protection ability for packaged products is suitable for long-distance transportation (over 300 km in this study) because the advantage of reducing environmental burdens through FLW reduction is greater at longer transportation distances. These results showed that an environmentally proper packaging condition depends on the transportation distance; thus, we need to develop or select a packaging condition suitable for different situations within the food supply chain. Moreover, this obtained knowledge can provide answers to the following questions from Lemaire and Limbourg (2019): “To what extent is it sustainable to pack food products? How does packaging improve shelf life and reduce FLW? Since packaging also has a cost and impacts the environment, how can good trade-off decisions be made?”

Influences of Reusable Boxes for Fruit Transportation on Life Cycle Environmental Burdens

Reusing and recycling products are considered good ways to reduce waste and environmental burdens (Koskela et al., 2014). Many studies have compared reusable or recyclable products to single-use products and have proven the environmental benefits of these products (Ross and Evans, 2003; Lee and Xu, 2004; Raugei et al., 2009). Moreover, reusable packaging for foods has also been studied; Koskela et al. (2014) compared recyclable corrugated cardboard boxes and reusable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic crates for bread delivery and concluded that recyclable boxes were more environmentally friendly. Singh et al. (2006) compared plastic containers and single-use paper corrugated trays for packaging fruits and vegetables and showed that reusable containers had a lower environmental burden for their production (29 % less total greenhouse gas emissions). Orikasa et al. (2014) calculated CO₂ emissions from the production of cardboard boxes, conventional reusable plastic containers, and two types of newly developed reusable bulk containers for Japanese radish distributions. They reported that bulk container production emitted less CO₂ per assumed functional unit (i.e., CO₂ emission required to transport 1 kg of vegetables). Additionally, they assessed the size of the bulk containers (large and small) and found that the emissions of large containers were 10 % lower than those of small containers because they used fewer materials per functional unit. Abejón et al. (2020) considered the useful life of reusable plastic crates for fruits and vegetables. They established two scenarios (10 years and 10 rotations per year and 10 years and 15 rotations per year) and compared them to single-use cardboard boxes. The environmental burdens of reusable crates were approximately 20–90 % lower than those of cardboard boxes in both scenarios for all assessed impact categories (9 categories). Thus, the positive effect of reusing packaging on the environment has been proven. However, these studies did not consider the quality of packaged products.

Koskela et al. (2014) suggested that packaging made from renewable materials is not always a preferable option than packaging made from non-renewable materials and that the environmental superiority of reusing and recycling packaging could be improved. Sasaki et al. (2022a) compared reusable and single-use boxes while considering the quality of packaged peaches (degree of damage on fruit surface). They reported that the environmental burden during the entire life cycle of peaches was almost the same for the reusable plastic outer boxes and single-use cardboard box scenarios and concluded that reusable boxes provide no environmental benefit in the supply chain of peach transportation, although reusability does decrease the burden for packaging production, and this burden is lower than that for cardboard production. Compared to cardboard boxes, reusable plastic boxes caused greater food losses due to their harder internal surfaces and greater environmental burdens; thus, additional fruit cultivation was required to compensate for this loss. Furthermore, the environmental advantage of reusing plastic boxes may be obtained only when transporting fruits and vegetables with hard surfaces, such as Japanese radishes (Orikasa et al., 2014), because products (foods) with hard surfaces generate less food loss during transportation, limiting additional environmental burdens caused by additional food production. These findings showed that reusing or recycling does not always result in environmental advantages; thus, we need to consider these options from different perspectives and assess the positive and negative aspects of packaging, e.g., the former is the reduction in the environmental burden of packaging, and the latter is the increase in the amount of FLW (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Strategy to environmentally optimize the food packaging based on its positive and genitive aspects.

Discussion with Future Perspectives

Packaging has sometimes been regarded as harmful to the environment because its main material is plastic, which has been associated with climate change and marine pollution due to its production and waste processes. However, in this article, we confirm that packaging has environmental benefits when considering its indirect influence, e.g., protection of packaged products and FLW reduction, during the food supply chain. Packaging showed a greater potential to reduce environmental burdens through FLW reduction, especially during the life cycle of a food, though its production causes greater environmental burdens. We expect future studies to consider the differences (changes) in the quality of targeted foods and the environmental impact on their life cycle by introducing not only packaging but also other postharvest technologies since these technologies are intended to maintain the quality of foods and prolong their shelf life. One of the suitable indicators for assessing this difference is environmental efficiency (Itsubo et al., 2007), which represents the value of a targeted technology or product (such as FLW reduction by packaging) per unit of environmental burden. For instance, environmental efficiency can be used to evaluate the balance between the amount of FLW with or without packaging and the associated environmental burden in the life cycles of different foods.

The main stage where FLW occurs in the food supply chain differs between developing and developed countries; developing countries causes FLW at early stages of the supply chain (e.g., the distribution stage), and developed countries causes at later stages (e.g., the consumption stage)ⁱⁱ⁾. However, the knowledge and perspective obtained for LCA from this review (e.g., the need to assess direct and indirect influences associated with packaging on LCA results) can be applied to almost all food packaging systems regardless of country, resulting in a reduction in environmental impacts through the proper use of packaging on a global scale. Furthermore, optimizing the food supply chain and reducing FLW through proper use based on the obtained knowledge could help solve not only climate change but also hunger and food safety challenges.

Conclusion

We visualize an environmental advantage of food packaging and provide a method for decision making concerning the proper use of packaging for foods by evaluating the relationship between the direct and indirect influences of food packaging. A strategy to environmentally optimize the packaging condition is retarded because the balance of direct and indirect influence of packaging on environment is complicated and depends on assessed foods and scenarios. We discuss the balance by the relationship between the energy density of food and the ratio of packaging burden to food production burden; however, it isn’t a perfect guide to determine which environmental burden we should decrease, food production or packaging.

The findings in this study can be applied to other technologies. Postharvest technologies, including packaging, are important for maintaining the quality of foods during their supply chain but cause additional environmental burdens through their production. The avoidance or prohibition of such technologies may not be environmentally friendly. Therefore, we need to consider both the direct and indirect influences of these technologies on food packaging systems, as these influences have not yet been adequately considered and constitute future work.

Acknowledgements  This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number JP22K05901.

Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

•  Abejón,  R.,  Bala,  A.,  Vázquez-Rowe,  I.,  Aldaco,  R., and  Fullana-i-Palmer,  P. (2020). When plastic packaging should be preferred: Life cycle analysis of packages for fruit and vegetable distribution in the Spanish peninsular market. Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 155, 104666. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104666
•  Alves,  J.,  Gaspar,  P.D.,  Lima,  T.M., and  Silva,  P.D. (2023). What is the role of active packaging in the future of food sustainability? A systematic review. J. Sci. Food Agric., 103, 1004–1020. doi:10.1002/jsfa.11880
•  Amienyo,  D.,  Gujba,  H., and  Stichnothe,  H. (2013). Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 18, 77–92. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0459-y
•  Andersson,  K. and  Ohlsson,  T. (1999). Life cycle assessment of bread produced on different scales. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 4, 25–40. doi: 10.1007/BF02979392
•  Atallah,  A.A.,  EI-Deeb,  A.M., and  Mohamed,  E.N. (2021). Shelf-life of domiati cheese under modified atmosphere packaging. J. Dairy Sci., 104, 8568–8581. doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19956
•  Baba,  N.,  Eshima,  A.,  Ooishi,  T.,  Orino,  T.,  Kuruma,  M.,  Yasutake,  S.,  Miyazaki,  Y.,  Kabashima,  M., and  Watanabe,  K. (2012). Development of a hammock-type Package for Strawberries, (1) Damage-prevention effect of the hammock-type Package. Bull. Fukuoka Agric. Res. Cent., 31, 27–31.
•  Berlin,  J. (2002). Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. Int. Dairy J., 12, 939–953. doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(02)00112-7
•  Böröcz,  P. (2023). Decision on single-use and reusable food packaging: searching for the optimal solution using a fuzzy mathematical approach. J. Sci. Food Agric., 103, 1042–1048. doi:10.1002/jsfa.11745
•  Boschiero,  M.,  Zanotelli,  D.,  Ciarapica,  F.E.,  Fadanelli,  L., and  Tagliavini,  M. (2019). Greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption during the post-harvest life of apples as affected by storage type, packaging and transport. J. Cleaner Prod., 220, 45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.300
•  Chen,  S.,  Brahma,  S.,  Mackay,  J.,  Cao,  C., and  Aliakbarian,  B. (2020). The role of smart packaging system in food supply chain. J. Food Sci., 85, 517–525. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.15046
•  Conte,  A.,  Cappelletti,  G.M.,  Nicoletti,  G.M.,  Russo,  C., and  Del Nobile,  M.A. (2015). Environmental implications of food loss probability in packaging design. Food Res. Int., 78, 11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.11.015
•  Hekkert,  M.P.,  Joosten,  L.A.J.,  Worrell,  E., and  Turkenburg,  W.C. (2000). Reduction of CO₂ emissions by improved management of material and product use: the case of primary packaging. Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 29, 33–64. doi: 10.1016/S0921-3449(99)00056-7
•  Itsubo,  N.,  Tahara,  K., and  Narita,  N. (2007). “Overviews of LCA, LCA series.” Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry, Tokyo.
•  Kan,  M. and  Miller,  S.A. (2022). Environmental impacts of plastic packaging of food products. Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 180, 106156. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106156
•  Kitazawa,  H. (2021). Role of packaging in maintaining food quality. Oleoscience, 21, 93–99. doi: 10.5650/oleoscience.21.93.
•  Koskela,  S.,  Dahlbo,  H.,  Judl,  J., and  Korhonen,  M.R. (2014). Reusable plastic crate or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. J. Cleaner Prod., 69, 83–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.045
•  Lee,  S.G. and  Xu,  X. (2004). A simplified life cycle assessment of re-usable and single-use bulk transit packaging. Packag. Technol. Sci., 17, 67–83. doi: 10.1002/pts.643
•  Lemaire,  A. and  Limbourg,  S. (2019). How can food loss and waste management achieve sustainable development goals? J. Cleaner Prod., 234, 1221–1234. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.226
•  Manfredi,  M.,  Fantin,  V.,  Vignali,  G., and  Gavara,  R. (2015). Environmental assessment of antimicrobial coatings for packaged fresh milk. J. Cleaner Prod., 95, 291–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.048
•  Marco,  L.D. and  Iannone,  R. (2017). Production, packaging and preservation of semi-finished apricots: A comparative life cycle assessment study. J. Food Eng., 206, 106–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.03.009
•  Matar,  C.,  Salou,  T.,  Hélias,  A.,  Pénicaud,  C.,  Gaucel,  S.,  Gontard,  N.,  Guilbert,  S., and  Guillard,  V. (2021). Benefit of modified atmosphere packaging on the overall environmental impact of packed strawberries. Postharvest Biol. Technol., 177, 111521. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111521
•  Molina-Besch,  K.,  Wikström,  F., and  Williams,  H. (2019). The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—Does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture? The Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 24, 37–50. doi: 10.1007/s11367-018-1500-6
•  Nakamura,  N.,  Umehara,  H.,  Nei,  D.,  Okadome,  H.,  Ishikawa,  Y.,  Nakano,  K.,  Maezawa,  S., and  Shiina,  T. (2008). Effects of package conditions on the damage of strawberries. Journal of the Society of Agriculture Structures, Japan., 39, 1–8. doi: 10.11449/sasj1971.39
•  Orikasa,  T.,  Nakamura,  N.,  Roy,  P.,  Thammawong,  M.,  Kaneta,  T.,  Yoshida,  M.,  Soga,  A.,  Ohno,  S.,  Niimi,  T.,  Yokoyama,  K.,  Nishino,  M.,  Koide,  S., and  Shiina,  T. (2014). Possibility of CO₂ emissions abatement by using newly developed bulk container for radish distribution process. The Society of Packaging Science and Technology, Japan., 23, 293–304.
•  Orikasa,  T.,  Goossens,  Y., and  Geeraerd,  A. (2023). Life cycle assessment of apple exported from Japan to Taiwan and potential environmental impact abatement. Engineering in Agriculture, Environment, and Food., 16(1), 1–16. doi: 10.37221/eaef.16.1_1
•  Prosapio,  V.,  Norton,  I., and  De Marco,  I. (2017). Optimization of freeze-drying using a life cycle assessment approach: Strawberries’ case study. J. Cleaner Prod., 168, 1171–1179. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.125
•  Raugei,  M.,  Fullana-i-Palmer,  P.,  Puig,  R., and  Torres,  A. (2009). A comparative life cycle assessment of single-use fibre drums versus reusable steel drums. Packag. Technol. Sci., 22, 443–450. doi: 10.1002/pts.865
•  Realini,  C.E. and  Marcos,  B. (2014). Active and intelligent packaging systems for a modern society. Meat Sci., 98, 404–419. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.031
•  Ross,  S. and  Evans,  D. (2003). The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. J. Cleaner Prod., 11, 561–571. doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00089-6
•  Roy,  P.,  Nei,  D.,  Orikasa,  T.,  Xu,  Q.,  Okadome,  H.,  Nakamura,  N., and  Shiina,  T. (2009). A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng., 90, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016
•  Sasaki,  Y.,  Orikasa,  T.,  Nakamura,  N.,  Hayashi,  K.,  Yasaka,  Y.,  Makino,  N.,  Shobatake,  K.,  Koide,  S., and  Shiina,  T. (2020). Influence of plastic package on reduction of environmental burden during distribution of fruit and vegetables -Life cycle assessment (LCA) of strawberry considering damage by transport vibration-. Journal of the Japanese Society of Agricultural Machinery and Food Engineers., 82, 65–76
•  Sasaki,  Y.,  Orikasa,  T.,  Nakamura,  N.,  Hayashi,  K.,  Yasaka,  Y.,  Makino,  N.,  Shobatake,  K.,  Koide,  S., and  Shiina  T. (2021). Life cycle assessment of peach considering tradeoffs between food loss reduction and environmental impacts. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 26, 822–837. doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01832-7
•  Sasaki,  Y.,  Orikasa,  T.,  Nakamura,  N.,  Hayashi,  K.,  Yasaka,  Y.,  Makino,  N.,  Shobatake,  K.,  Koide,  S., and  Shiina,  T. (2022a). Determination of the most environmentally friendly packaging for peach during transportation by modeling the relationship between food loss reduction and environmental impact. J. Food Eng., 331, 111120. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2022.111120
•  Sasaki,  Y.,  Orikasa,  T.,  Shinozaki,  R.,  Nakamura,  N.,  Hayashi,  K.,  Yasaka,  Y.,  Makino,  N.,  Shobatake,  K.,  Koide,  S., and  Shiina,  T. (2022b). Ideal packaging for ripened peaches determined through modeling the relationship between food loss reduction and life cycle environmental impacts. Packag. Technol. Sci., 26, 168–179. doi: 10.1002/pts.2708
•  Sasaki,  Y.,  Orikasa,  T.,  Nakamura,  N.,  Hayashi,  K.,  Yasaka,  Y.,  Makino,  N.,  Shobatake,  K.,  Koide,  S., and  Shiina,  T. (2022c). Optimal packaging for strawberry transportation: Evaluation and modeling of the relationship between food loss reduction and environmental impact. J. Food Eng., 314, 110767. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2021.110767
•  Silvenius,  F,  Grönman,  K,  Katajajuuri,  J.M.,  Soukka,  R,  Koivupuro,  HK, and  Virtanen,  Y. (2014). The role of household food waste in comparing environmental impacts of packaging alternatives. Packag. Technol. Sci., 27, 277–292 doi:10.1002/pts.2032
•  Singh,  S.P.,  Chonhenchob,  V., and  Singh,  J. (2006). Life cycle inventory and analysis of re-usable plastic containers and display-ready corrugated containers used for packaging fresh fruits and vegetables. Packag. Technol. Sci., 19, 279–293. doi: 10.1002/pts.731
•  Soode,  E.,  Lampert,  P.,  Weber-Blaschke,  G., and  Richter,  K. (2015). Carbon footprints of the horticultural products strawberries, asparagus, roses and orchids in Germany. J. Cleaner Prod., 87, 168–179. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.035
•  Soode-Schimonsky,  E.,  Richter,  K., and  Weber-Blaschke,  G. (2017). Product environmental footprint of strawberries. J. Environ. Manage., 203, 564–577. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.090
•  Spang,  E.S.,  Moreno,  L.C.,  Pace,  S.A.,  Achmon,  Y.,  Donis-Gonzalez,  I.,  Gosliner,  W.A.,  Jablonski-Sheffield,  M.P.,  Momin,  M.A.,  Quested,  T.E.,  Winans,  K.S., and  Tomich,  T.P. (2019). Food loss and waste: Measurement, drivers, and solutions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 44, 117–156. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033228
•  Vermeulen,  S.J.,  Campbell,  B.M., and  Ingram,  J.S.I. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 37, 195–222. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608
•  Wikström,  F.,  Williams,  H.,  Verghese,  K., and  Clune,  S. (2014). The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behavior in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies -a neglected topic. J. Cleaner Prod., 73, 100–108. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.042
•  Wohner,  B.,  Pauer,  E.,  Heinrich,  V., and  Tacker  M. (2019). Packaging-related food losses and waste: an overview of drivers and issues. Sustainability, 11, 264. doi:10.3390/su11010264
•  Yoshikawa,  N.,  Amano,  K., and  Shimada,  K. (2007). Evaluation of environmental load on fruit and vegetables consumption and its reduction potential. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers., 35, 499–509. doi: 10.2208/proer.35.499
• i)  https://www.fao.org/3/ap106e/ap106e.pdf (Sept. 13, 2024)
• ii)  http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf (Sept. 13, 2024)
• iii)  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (Sept. 13, 2024)
• iv)  https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3-2.pdf (Sept. 13, 2024)
• v)  https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20230428-mxt_kagsei-mext_00001_012.xlsx (Sept. 13, 2024) (in Japanese)