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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sustainability 2023-07, Vol.15 (13), p.10260 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
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 |