IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5346-d804876.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges for Sustainability in Packaging of Fresh Vegetables in Organic Farming

Author

Listed:
  • Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś

    (Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas, 40-844 Katowice, Poland)

  • Janusz Krupanek

    (Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas, 40-844 Katowice, Poland)

  • Mariusz Kalisz

    (Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas, 40-844 Katowice, Poland)

  • Jonathan Smith

    (Scilly Organics, St Martins, Isles of Scilly TR25 0QN, UK)

Abstract

The policy of circular economy focuses on phasing out fossil-based packaging and replacing it with more sustainable alternatives. Companies face the challenge of choosing packaging for their products that are functional and affordable, and place relatively less pressure on the environment. This is especially important for organic farms that make voluntary commitments to undertake sustainable decisions regarding practices and methods of farming and types of packaging used. This publication attempts to analyze the determinants of the choices of sustainable packaging solutions made by organic farming companies with the example of Scilly Organic, an organic micro farm from the Isles of Scilly, United Kingdom—a producer of organic vegetables. There are many options for fresh vegetable packaging, which include fossil-based packaging, bio-based packaging, and packaging manufactured from material that is a mixture of synthetic, natural, or modified polymers. Biodegradable packaging, including compostable ones, is currently of particular interest because, when separated and disposed of in the correct manner in the waste management phase, they have sustainability potential. Biodegradable plastics constitute over 55.5% of global bioplastics production. Packaging is the largest market segment for bioplastic, with 48% of the total bioplastics market in 2021. Although the use of biobased packaging brings some advantages, it also comes with certain limitations that are the subject of intensive research. In this publication, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool was used and a critical review of the literature was carried out. Based on the analysis, the key factors and aspects influencing the environmental performance of selected types of packaging were identified. The LCA was carried out for the three selected packaging types, including low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags, polylactic acid (PLA) bags, and polyester starch biopolymer (PCSB) bags. The research showed that the selection of more sustainable packaging is not straightforward. The analysis performed was the basis for providing recommendations for improving the sustainability of organic farms with regard to the selection of packaging for fresh vegetables. The critical processes in the life cycle that have to be considered are, in the first place, the production of polymer-based materials, and to a lesser extent, the production of the packaging bags and post-consumption waste utilization. In the case of PLA bags, 51% of the total impact is attributed to the production of polymer material. For starch polyester bags, this share is 58%, and for LDPE it constitutes 41% of the total score. At the same time, the choice of packaging should be made in the context of the specific properties of the packaging material, the requirements for disposal methods, and local waste management systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś & Janusz Krupanek & Mariusz Kalisz & Jonathan Smith, 2022. "Challenges for Sustainability in Packaging of Fresh Vegetables in Organic Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-29, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5346-:d:804876
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5346/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5346/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kunnika Changwichan & Thapat Silalertruksa & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2018. "Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bioplastics Production Systems and End-of-Life Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Mario Fargnoli & Nicolas Haber & Massimo Tronci, 2022. "Case Study Research to Foster the Optimization of Supply Chain Management through the PSS Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Broeren, Martijn L.M. & Kuling, Lody & Worrell, Ernst & Shen, Li, 2017. "Environmental impact assessment of six starch plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and additives," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 246-255.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ana Fonseca & Edgar Ramalho & Ana Gouveia & Filipa Figueiredo & João Nunes, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Ricard Garrido & Luisa F. Cabeza & Víctor Falguera & Omar Pérez Navarro, 2022. "Potential Use of Cow Manure for Poly(Lactic Acid) Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-28, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simone Blanc & Stefano Massaglia & Filippo Brun & Cristiana Peano & Angela Mosso & Nicole Roberta Giuggioli, 2019. "Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Sebastian Spierling & Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam & Marina Mudersbach & Nico Becker & Christoph Herrmann & Hans-Josef Endres, 2020. "End-of-Life Options for Bio-Based Plastics in a Circular Economy—Status Quo and Potential from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Patria, Raffel Dharma & Rehman, Shazia & Yuen, Chun-Bong & Lee, Duu-Jong & Vuppaladadiyam, Arun K. & Leu, Shao-Yuan, 2024. "Energy-environment-economic (3E) hub for sustainable plastic management – Upgraded recycling, chemical valorization, and bioplastics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 357(C).
    4. Nicolas Haber & Mario Fargnoli, 2022. "Product-Service Systems for Circular Supply Chain Management: A Functional Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Ana Fonseca & Edgar Ramalho & Ana Gouveia & Filipa Figueiredo & João Nunes, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Franziska Hesser & Daniela Groiß-Fürtner & Leona Woitsch & Claudia Mair-Bauernfeind, 2023. "Ex-Ante Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Dendromass Production: Conception and Experiences of an Innovation Project," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    7. David O. Kazmer & Davide Masato & Leonardo Piccolo & Kyle Puleo & Joshua Krantz & Varun Venoor & Austin Colon & Justin Limkaichong & Neil Dewar & Denis Babin & Cheryl Sayer, 2021. "Multivariate Modeling of Mechanical Properties for Hot Runner Molded Bioplastics and a Recycled Polypropylene Blend," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.
    8. Halayit Abrha & Jonnathan Cabrera & Yexin Dai & Muhammad Irfan & Abrham Toma & Shipu Jiao & Xianhua Liu, 2022. "Bio-Based Plastics Production, Impact and End of Life: A Literature Review and Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Luis Montesinos & Pedro Checa Rifá & Mireya Rifá Fabregat & Javier Maldonado-Romo & Stefano Capacci & Alessia Maccaro & Davide Piaggio, 2024. "Sustainability across the Medical Device Lifecycle: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Escobar, Neus & Laibach, Natalie, 2021. "Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: A review of process-based and life cycle approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Aarsha Surendren & Yusra Hasan & Amar K. Mohanty & Bassim Abbassi & Manjusri Misra, 2024. "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment on Corn Starch Plasticization and Co-Plasticization Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-13, August.
    12. Salman Alfarisi & Yuya Mitake & Yusuke Tsutsui & Hanfei Wang & Yoshiki Shimomura, 2023. "Nurture: A Novel Approach to PSS-Rebound Effect Identification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-25, April.
    13. Roel J. K. Helmes & Ana M. López-Contreras & Maud Benoit & Helena Abreu & Julie Maguire & Fiona Moejes & Sander W. K. van den Burg, 2018. "Environmental Impacts of Experimental Production of Lactic Acid for Bioplastics from Ulva spp ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Wahiba Yaïci & Michela Longo, 2022. "Feasibility Investigation of Hydrogen Refuelling Infrastructure for Heavy-Duty Vehicles in Canada," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-31, April.
    15. Wellenreuther, Claudia & Wolf, André, 2020. "Innovative feedstocks in biodegradable bio-based plastics: A literature review," HWWI Research Papers 194, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    16. Taofeeq D. Moshood & Gusman Nawanir & Fatimah Mahmud & Fazeeda Mohamad & Mohd Hanafiah Ahmad & Airin Abdul Ghani, 2021. "Expanding Policy for Biodegradable Plastic Products and Market Dynamics of Bio-Based Plastics: Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    17. Napapat Permpool & Awais Mahmood & Hafiz Usman Ghani & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2021. "An Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bio-Based Diesel Substitutes: A Case Study in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-10, January.
    18. Ik Kim & Chan-young Song & Eui-chan Jeon, 2020. "Comparison of Product Sustainability of Conventional and Low-Carbon Apples in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5346-:d:804876. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.