1. Fresh food packaging challenges
Dr. E.U. Thoden van Velzen
Paris, 22th October 2010

2. Trends in food packaging in 1995
Trends of 1995 What did happen
Active packaging O2 absorbers: expensive, too low capacity
for integrated systems
Intelligent packaging On crates and dollies
GS2 / 2D-barcode for consumer packs
Nano technology Nano clay barriers are not perfect yet
Rest: science-fiction
Biodegradable packaging Flowpack organic fruit & veggies

3. Oxygen absorbers
Technical benefits for:
Coffee, Tea, Chocolate (O2 sensitive aroma’s)
Oils, fats and pork meat products (reduces rancidity)
Cured meat products (reduces discoloration)
Added costs
Direct: approx. 0.01 €/pack.
Indirect production logistical costs: 0.01-0.10 €/pack.
Barrier for break through:
Integrated O2 absorber with trigger & high capacity

4. Intelligent packaging - TTI’s
TTI’s
Precise initial quality -> pasteurized
Well-known quality loss -> very product specific
Varying temperatures
Tests in supply chains
Production logistics is more complex
More men power required for service departments
Consumers did not chill their foods better

5. Intelligent packaging Barcode- RFID’s
RFID’s can reduce the logistical costs
# wrong deliveries
Faster response on quick changes in demand
More efficient allocation of fresh products to reduce shrinkage and
maximize profit
however…
Costs of a total system
Discipline is required
Reliability of RFID’s
New barcodes formats….

6. Nano-technology
Nanoclay barriers Sensor and actuator
In development and technology in packaging
technical difficult Science fiction
• Exfoliation
• Colour
• Temperature sensitivity Nanoclay coating
Potential for large material
reductions
Test procedures for
acceptance in EU still
unclear
• Although there is no evidence
for unsafety

7. Biodegrabable packages
Current applications
Beer cups
• PLA does not splinter
Packages for organic F+V
• Not deter the organic heavy user
• Cheapest campaign for sustainability image
Not suited yet for all products
Generate much free publicity

8. But what did happen?
MAP- meat
Fresh cut industry
Weight reduction
Further expansion of plastics

9. Introduction
of
MAP for meat

10. History of meat packaging in NL
60’s 1964 first tests MAP
Supermarkets expand
1975 Begin MAP
Meat is pre-packed
• White styrofoam tray
2000 Break through MAP
• PVC stretch Large retailers start
2009: 60 % MAP

11. Modified atmosphere packaging for meat
Higher direct costs +0,07 €/pack
Packages
Gasses, machines…
Lower indirect costs <-0,10 €/pack
Longer shelf life
• Less shrinkage in shops (8 - 10 -> 4 - 5%)
• Less night shifts
• Lower delivery frequency ….

12. Balances
Meat shrinkage Packaging costs Meat shrinkage Packaging use
350 4,0
-37,8 M€ / Jahre 3,5
300
Embodied energy, [PJ/ Year]
-0,55 PJ / Jahre
3,0
250
Costs, [M€ / Year]
2,5
200
2,0
150
1,5
100 1,0
50 0,5
0 0,0
1994 2008 1994 2008
Financial: -37.8 M€ / Year Environment: -0.55 PJ / Year

13. Rise of fresh cut
Industry
(E MAP)

14. Fresh cut food products – Dutch perspective
Important Complex
Largest source of income for Fresh produce lives
Dutch retail
Quality varies > 100%
• Fresh turnover 10 B€
• Fresh cut greens turnover >
Sourcing issues
750 M€ in 2005, +14% /yr Large portfolios
• 100-250 fresh cut fruit and
vegetable products / shop
Traffic generator
Trends:
• Fresh = healthy, tasty,
convenient

15. Pre-packed fresh cut products

16. Development fresh cut industry
Market share o fre cu produ inN [%
f sh t cts L, ]
Rest 0,5
70’s: few offerings Fruit salads 0,4
Sprouts etc 4,2
M salads
eal 8,4
1985 Iceberg lettuce
S vegetables
oup 9,6
C w vegetables
ut inter 12,7
90’s: enormous growth C vegetables
ut 18,8
S frym
tir ixes 20,5
Largest change in retail Salads 24,8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

17. Anaerobic E-MAP for cut iceberg lettuce
10 20 ml O2/day >40 ml CO2/day
Method to avoid discolorations
/ enzymatic browning
Control the influx of O2
Not too much → Discoloration
Not too little → Fermentation
Control the outflux of CO2
Avoid suffocation in high CO2
atmospheres
Raise α (CO2/O2)

18. Dynamics of gas exchange
Packed iceberg lettuce
20
Carbon dioxide
18 Oxygen
16
14
12
CO2, [%]
10
8
6
4
2
0
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 10,00
Time, [days]

19. Challenge 1: the right gas permeability
02 = 0% 02 ~ 0% 02 > 0.5%
CO2 > 15% CO2 < 15% CO2 < 15%
Increasing gas permeability
Too low Too high
Fermentation / Rot Red discoloration

20. Challenge 2: initial quality varies in time
2,00
1,80
Harvest cycles 1,60
CO2 production, [% CO2/d]
1,40
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
June October October February 0,00
DE / NL North Africa
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
batch
March June
ES / IT
Slow / Fast?

21. E-MAP for double fresh meals
Steam and cook meals Solution
2005: 5-7 days SL -> 20% Optimally fresh vegetables
shrinkage -> 5 €/meal • Quality focussed purchase
• Pre-treatments
• Decontamination
Optimal E-MAP for freshly
cut vegetables
Protective marinade for meat
/ fish component
SL of 9-12 days feasible
Double Fresh EU funded project
Double Fresh FOOD-CT-2006-23182
www.doublefresh.eu

22. 3 Steps towards a high quality fresh cut product
1 Temperature ↓ Best Process
2 Control initial product quality
Quality oriented purchase policy Best Products
Decontaminate
3 Optimising packages Best Package

23. Rise of the fresh cut industry in NL
1985 2005
Turnover, [M€] <1 750
Profit, [M€] <1 >300
Packaging use, ~0 +2 BOPP film
[kton] +0.5 PET trays
Packaging technology made it possible!

24. Speed of innovaties in fresh chains
60
Meat MAP
Poultry MAP
50 EMAP
Estimated market adaptation NL, [%]
Oxygen absorbers
40
30
Mass transition
20
Invention First First
trials adapter
10
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year

25. Introduction of packaging technologies
Slow because:
It is complicated
Many stakeholders involved
Often require large investments
Unequal division of costs and benefits between chain
partners
But also cultural reasons:
Herd behaviour
Low level of education in the food industry

26. What did go fast?
Cheaper packages with added-value
Lighter bottles
Laminate films
Shrink sleeves…
Clear benefit for the decision maker

27. General trends 2010-2020
Rise of East-Asia
• Relocation of a large part of the manufacturing industries
Demography
• European population: older, fatter and less-motivated
• Asian population: eager and rapidly aging
Internet economy
• Rise of thousands of niche shops
• Loss of ownership and IPR
Scarcity of raw materials
• Metals, Phosphates and Oil
Climate crisis
• Renewable and recycable materials have an intrinsic benefit

28. Sustainability
To maintain welfare in Europe with:
Much less fossil fuels at higher costs
Much less skilled professionals
Re-invent agriculture
Eco-efficiency in food, fuel, materials
Food packaging recycling and reuse

29. Environmental priorities and possibilities
Many initiatives for a more sustainable food
industry are meaningful
1 raise the energy efficiency of food production
2 divert (food) waste from landfill in EU
3 reduce food wastage and optimise packaging
4 recycle plastics
5 renewable and recyclable packages

30. Packaging
recycling

31. Packaging recycling
Recycling polymers is sustainable
Virgin polymers: 85-110 MJ/kg
Collecting, sorting, reprocessing: 5-25 MJ/kg
But currently the total societal costs of recycling are often larger than
the costs of virgin polymers
Mostly policy driven
Material or Energy recovery
Tendency for down-cycling
Bright future
Rising virgin polymer prices
Steadily improving technologies for sorting and reprocessing
Food industries will demand recycled packaging

32. Deposit refund systems
Suitable for few types of packaging: 7%
Large PET soda bottles
Large HDPE washing liquid bottles
High (hidden) costs
Labour, floorspace, RVM’s
Costs are 2500-3000 €/ton

33. Source separation of plastic packaging
Most European countries source separate plastic
packaging waste from the households
High responses are claimed, but actual recovery is lower
20-30% is impurity
Substantial costs are made for collection, sorting and
reprocessing
High impact of logistics in costs and emissions
Recycling plastic packaging can be beneficial, but
should be done as efficient as possible

34. Commingled collection and centralised recovery
Plastics can also be
automatically be separated But:
from MSW with MRF Few waste companies can
add MRF to their incinerator
High investments
Low market prices for
New processes are needed
recovered plastics
for recycling into packages
Requires dedicated further
processing

35. System performance
20
18
16
Expected response, [kg/hh.yr]
14
Kerbside collection
Commingled collection
12
10
8
Central collection
6
4
2
Deposit refund
0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
Total costs of recycling/virgin costs
collection sorting processing
separation

36. Conclusions
Time to prioritise:
Reduce food losses due to inadequate packaging
• Packaging technology for meaningful products
Develop eco-efficient food packaging recycling scheme

37. Thank you
© Wageningen UR