The Environmental Impacts of Caesar Salad Packaging

There are at least 151 ways to uniquely package ingredients for a Caesar salad, and this research provides the environmental impacts of each so organizations can make more informed packaging decisions. This research examines the environmental impacts of salad packaging at the retail market based on...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sustainability 2023-07, Vol.15 (13), p.10260
Hauptverfasser: Stephens, Nate, Hurley, Rupert A, Kimmel, Robert, Bridges, William, Frierson, Ami, Darby, Duncan, Skaggs, Jeanne, Albro, Maggie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 13
container_start_page 10260
container_title Sustainability
container_volume 15
creator Stephens, Nate
Hurley, Rupert A
Kimmel, Robert
Bridges, William
Frierson, Ami
Darby, Duncan
Skaggs, Jeanne
Albro, Maggie
description There are at least 151 ways to uniquely package ingredients for a Caesar salad, and this research provides the environmental impacts of each so organizations can make more informed packaging decisions. This research examines the environmental impacts of salad packaging at the retail market based on the typical Caesar salad from the manufacturing gate to the post-consumer gate. A retail audit of salad packaging was conducted across the southeast USA in the summer of 2021, identifying 167 unique packaging types offered across four methods of sale: (1) whole packaged ingredients, (2) prepared packaged ingredients, (3) packaged salad kits, and (4) salad bar containers. Analysis of these packaged products yielded 26 unique materials that were analyzed within Trayak COMPASS life cycle analysis (LCA) software. One hundred and fifty-one possible salad packaging combinations were generated and assessed through various environmental impact measurements. A novel formula was developed that provides a standard score for each possible combination. For lettuce, heavier clamshells and tubs were more impactful than flexible bags. For cheese, flexible bags were less impactful than heavier, rigid packaging. For croutons, bag-in-box solutions were just as impactful as multi-layer flexible pouches. For dressings, impact corresponded with weight, where a flexible plastic pouch had less of an impact than plastic and glass bottles. Packaged kits and salad bar packaging were analyzed as well, determining bagged kits’ impacts were significantly lower than those of bowl kits. Five packages common to salad bars were analyzed, where coated paper had less of an impact than molded pulp and plastic clamshells. The value of this work can be leveraged by researchers and organizations who seek to make packaging decisions based on environmental impacts and consumers who seek to be more informed about the impacts of the packaging they purchase.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/su151310260
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2836498603</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A758355277</galeid><sourcerecordid>A758355277</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-79a0e764f54abadf7a643a33dcf8854e924066589d151fb13567fddfd4b042d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkEtLAzEQx4MoWGpPfoEFTyJbk81r91hK1UJBsfUcpptk3bqPmmRFv72RemhnDjMMv3n9EbomeEppge_9QDihBGcCn6FRhiVJCeb4_Ci_RBPvdzgapaQgYoTo5t0ki-6rdn3Xmi5AkyzbPZTBJ71N5mA8uGQNDejkBcoPqOquukIXFhpvJv9xjN4eFpv5U7p6flzOZ6u0pJKEVBaAjRTMcgZb0FaCYBQo1aXNc85MkTEsBM8LHe-2W0K5kFZrq9kWs0zndIxuDnP3rv8cjA9q1w-uiytVllPBilzEP8ZoeqAqaIyqO9sHB2V0bdq67Dtj61ifSZ5TzjMpY8PtSUNkgvkOFQzeq-X69ZS9O7Cl6713xqq9q1twP4pg9ae6OlKd_gLfR3Dv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2836498603</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Environmental Impacts of Caesar Salad Packaging</title><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Stephens, Nate ; Hurley, Rupert A ; Kimmel, Robert ; Bridges, William ; Frierson, Ami ; Darby, Duncan ; Skaggs, Jeanne ; Albro, Maggie</creator><creatorcontrib>Stephens, Nate ; Hurley, Rupert A ; Kimmel, Robert ; Bridges, William ; Frierson, Ami ; Darby, Duncan ; Skaggs, Jeanne ; Albro, Maggie</creatorcontrib><description>There are at least 151 ways to uniquely package ingredients for a Caesar salad, and this research provides the environmental impacts of each so organizations can make more informed packaging decisions. This research examines the environmental impacts of salad packaging at the retail market based on the typical Caesar salad from the manufacturing gate to the post-consumer gate. A retail audit of salad packaging was conducted across the southeast USA in the summer of 2021, identifying 167 unique packaging types offered across four methods of sale: (1) whole packaged ingredients, (2) prepared packaged ingredients, (3) packaged salad kits, and (4) salad bar containers. Analysis of these packaged products yielded 26 unique materials that were analyzed within Trayak COMPASS life cycle analysis (LCA) software. One hundred and fifty-one possible salad packaging combinations were generated and assessed through various environmental impact measurements. A novel formula was developed that provides a standard score for each possible combination. For lettuce, heavier clamshells and tubs were more impactful than flexible bags. For cheese, flexible bags were less impactful than heavier, rigid packaging. For croutons, bag-in-box solutions were just as impactful as multi-layer flexible pouches. For dressings, impact corresponded with weight, where a flexible plastic pouch had less of an impact than plastic and glass bottles. Packaged kits and salad bar packaging were analyzed as well, determining bagged kits’ impacts were significantly lower than those of bowl kits. Five packages common to salad bars were analyzed, where coated paper had less of an impact than molded pulp and plastic clamshells. The value of this work can be leveraged by researchers and organizations who seek to make packaging decisions based on environmental impacts and consumers who seek to be more informed about the impacts of the packaging they purchase.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/su151310260</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Aluminum ; Bioplastics ; Chemicals ; Consumer behavior ; Consumers ; Consumption ; Decisions ; Environmental impact ; Food ; Food packaging ; Ingredients ; Landfill ; Lettuce ; Mold dressing ; Multilayers ; Organizations ; Package design ; Packaging ; Packaging industry ; Plastics ; Porous materials ; Product information ; Recipes ; Recycling ; Salads ; Sustainability</subject><ispartof>Sustainability, 2023-07, Vol.15 (13), p.10260</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 MDPI AG</rights><rights>2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-79a0e764f54abadf7a643a33dcf8854e924066589d151fb13567fddfd4b042d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-79a0e764f54abadf7a643a33dcf8854e924066589d151fb13567fddfd4b042d83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1321-6439</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stephens, Nate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, Rupert A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimmel, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bridges, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frierson, Ami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darby, Duncan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skaggs, Jeanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albro, Maggie</creatorcontrib><title>The Environmental Impacts of Caesar Salad Packaging</title><title>Sustainability</title><description>There are at least 151 ways to uniquely package ingredients for a Caesar salad, and this research provides the environmental impacts of each so organizations can make more informed packaging decisions. This research examines the environmental impacts of salad packaging at the retail market based on the typical Caesar salad from the manufacturing gate to the post-consumer gate. A retail audit of salad packaging was conducted across the southeast USA in the summer of 2021, identifying 167 unique packaging types offered across four methods of sale: (1) whole packaged ingredients, (2) prepared packaged ingredients, (3) packaged salad kits, and (4) salad bar containers. Analysis of these packaged products yielded 26 unique materials that were analyzed within Trayak COMPASS life cycle analysis (LCA) software. One hundred and fifty-one possible salad packaging combinations were generated and assessed through various environmental impact measurements. A novel formula was developed that provides a standard score for each possible combination. For lettuce, heavier clamshells and tubs were more impactful than flexible bags. For cheese, flexible bags were less impactful than heavier, rigid packaging. For croutons, bag-in-box solutions were just as impactful as multi-layer flexible pouches. For dressings, impact corresponded with weight, where a flexible plastic pouch had less of an impact than plastic and glass bottles. Packaged kits and salad bar packaging were analyzed as well, determining bagged kits’ impacts were significantly lower than those of bowl kits. Five packages common to salad bars were analyzed, where coated paper had less of an impact than molded pulp and plastic clamshells. The value of this work can be leveraged by researchers and organizations who seek to make packaging decisions based on environmental impacts and consumers who seek to be more informed about the impacts of the packaging they purchase.</description><subject>Aluminum</subject><subject>Bioplastics</subject><subject>Chemicals</subject><subject>Consumer behavior</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Consumption</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food packaging</subject><subject>Ingredients</subject><subject>Landfill</subject><subject>Lettuce</subject><subject>Mold dressing</subject><subject>Multilayers</subject><subject>Organizations</subject><subject>Package design</subject><subject>Packaging</subject><subject>Packaging industry</subject><subject>Plastics</subject><subject>Porous materials</subject><subject>Product information</subject><subject>Recipes</subject><subject>Recycling</subject><subject>Salads</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><issn>2071-1050</issn><issn>2071-1050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkEtLAzEQx4MoWGpPfoEFTyJbk81r91hK1UJBsfUcpptk3bqPmmRFv72RemhnDjMMv3n9EbomeEppge_9QDihBGcCn6FRhiVJCeb4_Ci_RBPvdzgapaQgYoTo5t0ki-6rdn3Xmi5AkyzbPZTBJ71N5mA8uGQNDejkBcoPqOquukIXFhpvJv9xjN4eFpv5U7p6flzOZ6u0pJKEVBaAjRTMcgZb0FaCYBQo1aXNc85MkTEsBM8LHe-2W0K5kFZrq9kWs0zndIxuDnP3rv8cjA9q1w-uiytVllPBilzEP8ZoeqAqaIyqO9sHB2V0bdq67Dtj61ifSZ5TzjMpY8PtSUNkgvkOFQzeq-X69ZS9O7Cl6713xqq9q1twP4pg9ae6OlKd_gLfR3Dv</recordid><startdate>20230701</startdate><enddate>20230701</enddate><creator>Stephens, Nate</creator><creator>Hurley, Rupert A</creator><creator>Kimmel, Robert</creator><creator>Bridges, William</creator><creator>Frierson, Ami</creator><creator>Darby, Duncan</creator><creator>Skaggs, Jeanne</creator><creator>Albro, Maggie</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1321-6439</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230701</creationdate><title>The Environmental Impacts of Caesar Salad Packaging</title><author>Stephens, Nate ; Hurley, Rupert A ; Kimmel, Robert ; Bridges, William ; Frierson, Ami ; Darby, Duncan ; Skaggs, Jeanne ; Albro, Maggie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-79a0e764f54abadf7a643a33dcf8854e924066589d151fb13567fddfd4b042d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Aluminum</topic><topic>Bioplastics</topic><topic>Chemicals</topic><topic>Consumer behavior</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Consumption</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food packaging</topic><topic>Ingredients</topic><topic>Landfill</topic><topic>Lettuce</topic><topic>Mold dressing</topic><topic>Multilayers</topic><topic>Organizations</topic><topic>Package design</topic><topic>Packaging</topic><topic>Packaging industry</topic><topic>Plastics</topic><topic>Porous materials</topic><topic>Product information</topic><topic>Recipes</topic><topic>Recycling</topic><topic>Salads</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stephens, Nate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, Rupert A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimmel, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bridges, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frierson, Ami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darby, Duncan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skaggs, Jeanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albro, Maggie</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stephens, Nate</au><au>Hurley, Rupert A</au><au>Kimmel, Robert</au><au>Bridges, William</au><au>Frierson, Ami</au><au>Darby, Duncan</au><au>Skaggs, Jeanne</au><au>Albro, Maggie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Environmental Impacts of Caesar Salad Packaging</atitle><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle><date>2023-07-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>13</issue><spage>10260</spage><pages>10260-</pages><issn>2071-1050</issn><eissn>2071-1050</eissn><abstract>There are at least 151 ways to uniquely package ingredients for a Caesar salad, and this research provides the environmental impacts of each so organizations can make more informed packaging decisions. This research examines the environmental impacts of salad packaging at the retail market based on the typical Caesar salad from the manufacturing gate to the post-consumer gate. A retail audit of salad packaging was conducted across the southeast USA in the summer of 2021, identifying 167 unique packaging types offered across four methods of sale: (1) whole packaged ingredients, (2) prepared packaged ingredients, (3) packaged salad kits, and (4) salad bar containers. Analysis of these packaged products yielded 26 unique materials that were analyzed within Trayak COMPASS life cycle analysis (LCA) software. One hundred and fifty-one possible salad packaging combinations were generated and assessed through various environmental impact measurements. A novel formula was developed that provides a standard score for each possible combination. For lettuce, heavier clamshells and tubs were more impactful than flexible bags. For cheese, flexible bags were less impactful than heavier, rigid packaging. For croutons, bag-in-box solutions were just as impactful as multi-layer flexible pouches. For dressings, impact corresponded with weight, where a flexible plastic pouch had less of an impact than plastic and glass bottles. Packaged kits and salad bar packaging were analyzed as well, determining bagged kits’ impacts were significantly lower than those of bowl kits. Five packages common to salad bars were analyzed, where coated paper had less of an impact than molded pulp and plastic clamshells. The value of this work can be leveraged by researchers and organizations who seek to make packaging decisions based on environmental impacts and consumers who seek to be more informed about the impacts of the packaging they purchase.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/su151310260</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1321-6439</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2071-1050
ispartof Sustainability, 2023-07, Vol.15 (13), p.10260
issn 2071-1050
2071-1050
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2836498603
source MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Aluminum
Bioplastics
Chemicals
Consumer behavior
Consumers
Consumption
Decisions
Environmental impact
Food
Food packaging
Ingredients
Landfill
Lettuce
Mold dressing
Multilayers
Organizations
Package design
Packaging
Packaging industry
Plastics
Porous materials
Product information
Recipes
Recycling
Salads
Sustainability
title The Environmental Impacts of Caesar Salad Packaging
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T20%3A59%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Environmental%20Impacts%20of%20Caesar%20Salad%20Packaging&rft.jtitle=Sustainability&rft.au=Stephens,%20Nate&rft.date=2023-07-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=13&rft.spage=10260&rft.pages=10260-&rft.issn=2071-1050&rft.eissn=2071-1050&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/su151310260&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA758355277%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2836498603&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A758355277&rfr_iscdi=true