IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v22y2018i1p180-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Sustainability of Fluid Milk Delivery Systems in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Jasmina Burek
  • Daesoo Kim
  • Darin Nutter
  • Susan Selke
  • Rafael Auras
  • Sarah Cashman
  • Beverly Sauer
  • Greg Thoma

Abstract

Beverage producers in the United States choose packaging based on cost and consumer preference. Monolayer high†density polyethylene (HDPE) and gable†top carton containers have long dominated the U.S. fluid milk market, but pressure for more sustainable packaging is increasing. We present a broad discussion on environmental sustainability of 18 fluid milk containers through life cycle assessment. Because different container types require unique milk processing, distribution, and disposal and incur or avoid milk losses, fluid milk delivery systems (FMDSs) are evaluated, rather than containers in isolation. By assessing FMDSs, a complete measure of containers’ environmental sustainability was obtained. Despite conservative assumptions about milk losses, differences in container size, milk processing, distribution, and container recycling, pair†wise cradle†to†grave comparisons of FMDSs show there are no superior FMDSs. But, 500†to 1,000†milliliter FMDSs are potentially superior to ≥half gallon if they prevent milk losses. Thus, the future of FMDSs in the United States depends on the industry's ability to prevent distribution (12%) and consumption milk losses (20% to 35%). Farm†gate†to†grave comparisons showed that chilled HDPE FMDSs are superior to other plastic and chilled paperboard FMDSs for climate†change impact, but the result is inconclusive for chilled HDPE to ambient (unrefrigerated) paperboard or plastic pouch FMDS comparisons. Plastic pouch FMDSs show potential to reduce nonrenewable fossil energy, but need to be recyclable. Ambient FMDSs are superior to chilled FMDSs for water depletion. Eight†ounce paperboard FMDSs are superior to 8†ounce plastic FMDSs. Thus, alternative FMDSs may improve environmental sustainability of the U.S. postfarm fluid milk supply chain.

Suggested Citation

  • Jasmina Burek & Daesoo Kim & Darin Nutter & Susan Selke & Rafael Auras & Sarah Cashman & Beverly Sauer & Greg Thoma, 2018. "Environmental Sustainability of Fluid Milk Delivery Systems in the United States," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(1), pages 180-195, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:22:y:2018:i:1:p:180-195
    DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12531
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jiec.12531?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yi He & Qianqian Xu & Da Zhao, 2020. "Impacts of the BOPS Option on Sustainable Retailing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Catherine Houssard & Dominique Maxime & Scott Benoit & Yves Pouliot & Manuele Margni, 2020. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Five Greek Yogurt Production Systems: A Perspective beyond the Plant Boundaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Meike Rombach & Xiaomeng Lucock & David L. Dean, 2023. "No Cow? Understanding US Consumer Preferences for Plant-Based over Regular Milk-Based Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Gonzalo Wandosell & María C. Parra-Meroño & Alfredo Alcayde & Raúl Baños, 2021. "Green Packaging from Consumer and Business Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Burek, Jasmina & Nutter, Darin W., 2020. "Environmental implications of perishables storage and retailing☆," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:22:y:2018:i:1:p:180-195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.