Packaging technology challenges - Ulphard Thoden van Velzen

2,832 views

Published on

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,832
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,146
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Packaging technology challenges - Ulphard Thoden van Velzen

  1. 1. Fresh food packaging challenges Dr. E.U. Thoden van Velzen Paris, 22th October 2010
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8. But what did happen? MAP- meat Fresh cut industry Weight reduction Further expansion of plastics
  9. 9. Introduction of MAP for meat
  10. 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. 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. 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. 13. Rise of fresh cut Industry (E MAP)
  14. 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. 15. Pre-packed fresh cut products
  16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 26. What did go fast? Cheaper packages with added-value Lighter bottles Laminate films Shrink sleeves… Clear benefit for the decision maker
  27. 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. 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. 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. 30. Packaging recycling
  31. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 37. Thank you © Wageningen UR

×