Packaging factors that drive shopper purchase preference

Read more...

----

Use of carbon monoxide in packaging ground beef would extend shelf life

Hamburger with a much longer shelf life using carbon monoxide-based technology may some day be coming to your local supermarket.

Although the packaging is available in U.S. grocery stores, it has not yet been approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, says Sven Anders, principal investigator of a study on consumer acceptance of the technology conducted at the University of Alberta.

"The use of carbon monoxide in this type of modified atmosphere packaging has been used in a variety of food applications, but it has not in meat packaging," Anders, a professor of rural economy at the university, said in an interview.

The process seals a small amount of carbon monoxide gas inside the hamburger package, stabilizing the fresh cherry-red colour that he says consumers consistently prefer over light-red or brownish-coloured meat.

This gives the meat an extended shelf life of up to 14 days, exceeding the current three-day window.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colourless gas that when inhaled can be fatal, says the University of Guelph-based Food Safety Network. However, it says when the gas is used in packaging it is not harmful to health.

In the U.S., much media attention was given to the proposal of a complete ban on the use of carbon monoxide in foods by consumer groups and companies prior to its acceptance by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006.

For his research, Anders did a small study of Alberta consumers to see if there would be acceptance. He found that 60 per cent of the 205 people polled would be willing to pay more for the cherry-red colour and extended shelf life when they learned it was artificially obtained through the CO-modified atmosphere packaging process.

But he adds that prominent labelling and public information would be crucial factors in getting all shoppers to buy into the new packaging.

"The product looks better, but people would have to pay close attention to the expiry date."

In 2001, the European Commission carried out a review of the safety of carbon monoxide in foods and determined the application to be safe. It has been used in Norway for 20 years without incident.

However, the commission decided that most consumers were not ready to accept the technology and the use of carbon monoxide was prohibited.

Anders says he would like to see the carbon monoxide technology used in Canada for the savings an extended shelf life would bring to meat processors and retail distributors and ultimately to consumers.

Anders' findings, which he and a research team in the U.S. and Germany have presented at several conferences, were endorsed by the Canadian Meat Council and funded by the Alberta Livestock Industry Development Fund and the Canadian Beef Information Centre.

Alastair Sinclair, a spokesman for Health Canada, says that the use of carbon monoxide to improve the appearance and extend the shelf life of ground beef is not currently allowed in Canada.

"Should an applicant wish to use this technology on product to be sold in Canada, they would first have to make a submission to Health Canada to allow the use of the technology," he said in a statement.

"This submission would have to contain scientific information demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of the process," he says. "Health Canada scientists would review this data, along with any other information published in the scientific literature."

"Only once Health Canada scientists are satisfied that the process is safe and effective would it be allowed for use in Canada."

Source

Pros and cons of modified atmosphere packaging

Here are the advantages and disadvantages of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), the technique used for prolonging the shelf life of fresh or minimally processed foods:

Pros:

• Longer shelf life allows wider distribution of food
• Fresh foods available year-round
• Attractive see-through packaging
• Requires less storage space time and labour for retailer
  

Cons:

• Expensive equipment and materials (gases and packaging)
• Increased cost of transportation
• Potential safety risk as people may not keep the foods under the necessary storage conditions (refrigeration)

Source: Food Safety Network, University of Guelph

---

Coca-Cola UK Details Carbon Footprint

Coca-Cola today released details of the carbon footprint of some of its most popular drinks: ‘Coca-Cola', ‘diet Coke' and ‘Coke Zero'. It is the first time that the carbon footprint of any brand of sparkling drinks has been certified by the Carbon Trust.

The results reveal that a 330ml can of ‘Coca-Cola' sold in Great Britain has a carbon footprint of 170 grams and the same sized can of ‘diet Coke' or ‘Coke Zero' has a footprint of 150 grams. A 330ml glass bottle of ‘Coca-Cola' has a footprint of 360 grams.

The research also revealed how packaging accounts for the largest portion of the drink's carbon footprint, between 30 - 70%, depending on the type of container used. However, the research went on to highlight the importance of both using recycled content and of encouraging recycling post use. A combination of these two factors can decrease the overall carbon footprint of a product by up to 60%.

Read full Press Release

---

Plastiques oxo-biodégradables : dithiocarbamate, écotoxicité et biodégradabilité

Pour l’intérêt de tous, je vais répondre aux questions soulevées par Anonyme dans le post intitulé : Sacs oxo-biodégradables : la fausse promesse ?

Un petit rappel, ce billet a été rédigé à partir d’articles récemment publiés dans des magazines et journaux sérieux. Je ne fais pas le procès contre les oxo. Je ne fais que relater des faits et aux consommateurs/utilisateurs de faire leurs choix. Par ailleurs, je ne prends pas position. Comme tout produit il y a forcément du positif et du négatif en fonction de son utilisation et sa fin de vie. Cependant, il importe de faire la lumière sur les confusions et les ambigüités que contribuent à forger certains produits.

Ce n’est sans doute pas un hasard si à l’heure actuelle diverses sources, qui n’ont a priori pas d’intérêt particuliers à se positionner contre les oxo-biodégradables, remettent en question certains arguments avancés par les vendeurs des produits oxo-biodégradables. Tout ne peut pas être que cabale, mauvais procès d’intention ou pire attaque sournoise de produits concurrents.
---

Concernant les dithiocarbamates, en dépit des secrets de fabrication toujours très bien gardés, plusieurs publications scientifiques parlent d’additifs tels que les dithiocarbamates de fer, de nickel, de manganèse ou les stéarates utilisés pour favoriser la dégradation.

Dans la fameuse étude de l’ADEME (voir commentaire ici) il est donné une définition des oxo-dégradables (et non oxo-biodégradable!!!) qui se lit comme suit: potentiel d’un polymère à se dégrader grâce à l’ajout d’additifs (dithiocarbamate de fer, nickel, manganèse, stéarate de nickel…) qui permettra un fractionnement du polymère par les rayons du soleil (rayons UV), la chaleur et/ou une action.

Concernant l’écotoxicité des additifs, je ne mets pas en doute les tests OECD 208 réalisés par les certificateurs américains, canadiens, européens; je ne fais qu’évoquer un autre son de cloche : la position de l’European Bioplastics.

Product Safety and Ecotoxicity. The so called "oxo-biodegradable" additives pose several concerns regarding safety and ecotoxicity. These additives are based on ionic metals that trigger PE fragmentation. Some metal compounds used in these products are classified and labelled under the EU Directive 67/548/EEC on Dangerous Substances as causing adverse effects on humans and theenvironment. For instance, cobalt Co(II), has been found in concentrations higher than 4,000 mg/kg in "oxo-biodegradable" additives. At such high concentrations these materials are considered harmful if released into the environment, and are regulated at the workplace of plastic manufacturers and converters, since metal fumes might be released through dust or under heating. During the fragmentation process however, regulated metals may be liberated into the environment with the consequence of adding (eco)toxic persistent and bio accumulative CMR substances(Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, toxic to Reproduction).

Concernant la biodégradation des polymères additivés, rien ne semble clair. Sont-ils biodégradables ou seulement dégradables?

Le National Advertising Division (NAD), un organisme chargé d’évaluer la véracité de la publicité aux États-Unis vient de recommander à GP Plastics Corp, le producteur de sacs oxo-biodégradables, de modifier ou de cesser de diffuser certaines fausses affirmations concernant leurs produits.

The National Advertising Division in the United States ruled that plastic bags that were oxo-biodegradable could not be marketed as being biodegradable according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for the use of environmental marketing claims.

Différentes publications font état d’une biodégradation très lente et faible du polyéthylène additivé (sur cent à deux cents ans).

Finalement, ces organismes aussi sérieux soient-ils peuvent se tromper et corriger leur position. Ce ne serait pas une première, le Bisphénol A (BPA) en est un exemple récent.

---

Vous pouvez consulter ici le dossier sur les plastiques oxo-biodégradables
---

Point of view: LCA is as valuable as a mindset as it is as a tool

Since sustainability, at its heart, embodies the cradle-to-cradle concept, it makes sense to look across that sweep in determining how much can be standardized. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that can assist because it has been standardized by such entities as the International Standards Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency. Even so, that standardization relates to structure; it’s the skeleton upon which the user attaches the muscle.

LCA is as valuable as a mindset as it is as a tool because trying to enact it to the letter can entangle the packaging professional and the sustainability executive in data overload. The two should work cooperatively to devise a standardized version of an LCA that offers simplicity, but not at the expense of reliability and relevance.

----

An LCA can be useful as a means of comparison—bioplastics vs. petroplastics, for instance—but only to a point. It does not relieve the packaging professional or the sustainability executive from the need to rank the importance of the inputs of energy and resources and the outputs of emissions and wastes. Sustainability is often described in terms of the three P’s: Profits, Planet, People. However, under a given scenario, one of them might be deemed “more equal” than the others.

Sterling Anthony, President, Sterling Anthony Consulting

---

Bisphénol A : À quand l’interdiction du BPA dans les matériaux alimentaires?

Le fameux Bisphénol A (ici et là) fait encore parler de lui.

En France, le Réseau Environnement Santé (RES), qui regroupe des organisations non gouvernementales, des scientifiques et des professionnels de santé, vient de lancer une campagne visant à interdire le bisphénol A (BPA) dans les plastiques alimentaires, en application du principe de précaution.

Au Canada, Le Globe & Mail rapporte aujourd'hui que des tests menés par Santé Canada montrent que la grande majorité des cannettes de boissons gazeuses ou de boissons énergisantes vendues au pays contiennent du bisphénol A (Cliquez ici pour voir la vidéo).

Après les biberons, les bouteilles en plastique et les conserves, et donc désormais les canettes, quel sera le prochain sur la liste?

Sur cette question, le principe de précaution devrait être préconisé. Il faut interdire le BPA de tous les matériaux utilisés dans l'alimentaire. Quand on sait qu’un composé toxique n’est pas indispensable, pourquoi faire courir des risques à la population surtout quand des alternatives pas forcément plus onéreuses existent ?

-

Compostable vs. Biodegradable vs. Recyclable

A couple of years ago, Michael Oshman found a full line of foodservice packaging that claimed to biodegrade in landfills more quickly than any other plastic on the market.

“It was like, ‘This is the product that we've been waiting for,’” says Oshman, who has been executive director of the Green Restaurant Association (GRA) since he founded the organization 19 years ago. “It was so convincing.”

But then he sent it to his team for analysis and found its claims were false.

If carefully worded assertions can fool someone who has been entrenched in the green restaurant movement for almost two decades, how can the rest of the industry hope to understand the complexities of terms such as “compostable”, “biodegradable”, and “recyclable”?

With that question in mind, QSR talked with several experts to decipher the implications of each term—and the impact that sustainable packaging will have on your bottom line.

Read more...

---

Packaging ink migration ruling challenged

Via FoodProductionDaily.com

Tetra Pak said it is appealing a ruling by an Italian judge who sentenced both the global packaging equipment supplier and food giant Nestle to pay compensation to a party based on the presence of a packaging chemical in baby milk.

According to the ANSA news agency, the Sicilian court ruled that Nestle Italia and Tetra Pak International were responsible for the ‘psychological prejudice’ suffered by the parents of two girls when they became aware that the infant formula their daughters had consumed was contaminated by IsopropilThioXantone (ITX).

Product recall

Italy’s food safety regulators detected ITX in some batches of Nestle baby milk in 2005, sparking a massive recall at the time. The packaging had been produced by Tetra Pak, and the ink curing agent was found to have migrated from the carton into the milk.

Linda Bernier, director of corporate PR for Tetra Pak, told FoodProductionDaily.com that the company was restricted in the comments it could make as the appeal case is pending but she stressed that seven other similar cases brought by plaintiffs in the intervening years were dismissed as groundless by the judges in question.

She said that Tetra Pak no longer uses the chemical ITX for its food packaging, and has switched to printing methods that do not use photo initiators, even thought the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) concluded at the time that ITX posed no danger to human health at the levels found in the products.

Tainted cereal

Meanwhile, migration of a chemical from cardboard packaging into the food prompted the European Commission last week to request a risk assessment on the substance from EFSA.

A German customer of a Belgian cereal manufacturer discovered the presence of 4-methylbenzophenone in a chocolate crunch muesli product at levels amounting to 798 μg/kilogram parts per billion (ppb) and notified the relevant authorities.

EFSA has been asked to evaluate the risk of the presence of the ink component in food, and also whether the existing tolerable daily intake (TDI) for similar substances benzophenone and hydroxybenzophenone could also be applied to 4-methylbenzophenone; the chemicals are all used as photo-initiators in the area of printing inks.

Regulation on inks

Inks, according to the Commission, are not covered by specific European legislation on food contact materials. However the use of printing inks has to comply with the general rules of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and with good manufacturing practice (GMP) as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006.

In relation to components of packaging such as inks, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 states that under normal or foreseeable conditions of use they should not transfer their constituents to food in quantities which could endanger human health.

---

Every tonne of Plantic® sheet will save up to 2.5 tonnes of CO2

Plantic Technologies Limited, manufacturer of starch-based polymers for packaging and other applications, commissioned RMIT University, Melbourne, to undertake a streamlined update of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Plantic® biodegradable plastic packaging system compared with alternative polymers. The updated LCA reveals that every tonne of Plantic® sheet purchased in place of petrochemical polymers will save up to 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide (the average annual emissions of a compact car) and enough energy to power 2.5 average Australian homes.

Plantic Press releases

Plantic Achieves Outstanding Results in 2009 Life Cycle Assessment

Switching Easter Egg Packaging Could Power Canberra Over Easter

---

Plush Chocolates Launch Fairtrade Chocolates with Plantic® Packaging

---

Australia: National retailer presented DUMP Award for bad packaging

Environment Victoria’s National DUMP Awards (Damaging and Useless Materials in Packaging) shine a spotlight on the environmental consequences of excessive and irresponsible packaging. Ever since they were first held in 2004, the awards have been keenly watched by industry and government, with many past winners compelled to change their practices following adverse publicity

Well-known national retailer Coles received the Golden DUMP Award for their 5 Pack of Lemons wrapped in unrecyclable and unnecessary plastic packaging.

The full assessment report for Environment Victoria’s National DUMP and KEEP Awards is available at Environment Victoria.

---

A framework for reducing the impacts of packaging in Australia

Environment Victoria recently released a discussion paper that examined the role of the National Packaging Covenant (NPC). The report proposed the following framework for a more sustainable approach to packaging design and life cycle management which could be adopted by the industry.

1. The greenhouse gas emissions of packaging should be reduced. Greenhouse gas emissions should be used as a guide to the environmental impacts of packaging.

2. Product distribution and display systems should be overhauled to reduce the need for packaging. Brand owners and supermarkets should rethink the way a product is transported, displayed and sold in order to reduce its environmental impact.

3. Non recyclable materials should be banned from use in packaging by 2010. A national standard should be developed setting out which materials are recyclable and therefore permitted.

4. Recyclable packaging should be banned from landfill. State governments should use the available legislative arrangements to stop materials such as cardboard and paper, glass, aluminium, steel and plastics from going to landfill.

5. Facilities for recycling should be provided at supermarkets for flexible plastics (plastic bags, shrink wrap etc).

6. Reusable packaging should be introduced into a much wider area, including freight packaging, home delivery and by redesigning product packaging.

7. Consumers should take action by lobbying brand owners to take more action to cut the environmental impacts of packaging.

8. Away from home recycling should be increased by introducing a fund to support public place recycling and a national container deposit system should be introduced.
---