The challenge of waste minimisation in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in East Anglia, UK

121415

16 Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 57–6419

www.cleanerproduction.net202425

26

27 The challenge of waste minimisation in the food and drink28 industry: a demonstration project in East Anglia, UK

29 Katherine Hyde*, Ann Smith, Miranda Smith, Stefan Henningsson30 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK

31 Received 3 August 1999; accepted 10 May 2000

32

33 Abstract

34 Waste minimisation in the food and drink industry leads to many of the improvements demonstrated in other sectors—energy35 efficiency, reduction of raw material use, reduction in water consumption and increasing reuse and recycling on site. Such improve-36 ments in environmental performance produce a directly beneficial effect on the profitability of business.37 The East Anglian Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink Industry Project has demonstrated that significant amounts of food-38 grade material are rejected from the production line for their unsatisfactory quality, whether visual, physical, microbiological or39 compositional (chemical or biochemical). The Project has demonstrated that waste reduction of 12% of raw materials can be40 achieved and that this makes significant contributions to company profitability by improving yields per unit output and by reducing41 costs associated with waste disposal. Evidence also shows that there is potential for further improvements through improving42 dialogue between producers, retailers and consumers.43 The East Anglian Waste Minimisation Project has demonstrated that the packaging of food products presents considerable chal-44 lenges to the food and drink industry. Significant opportunities exist for modifying both primary and secondary food packaging.45 However, whilst packaging requirements principally consider health and safety, the demands of the major supermarket chains and46 consumers have taken little or no account of criteria designed to meet the wide-ranging demands of waste minimisation.47 Optimising the opportunities for waste minimisation in the key areas of putrescible wastage and packaging, and improving48 consensus and dialogue are essential catalysts between purchasers, including both consumers and the major supermarkets, and49 between food producers and manufacturers. These food and drink sectors must identify the process options that result in a lower50 waste burden, pursuing contractual agreements that reinforce and support the selection of such options. 2000 Elsevier Science51 Ltd. All rights reserved.

52 Keywords:Waste minimisation; Food industry53

5455

56 1. Introduction

57 The maintenance of food hygiene and product quality58 presents a challenge to the minimisation of raw material59 wastage in food and drink production since the former60 requires the rejection of substandard raw materials and61 the latter seeks to minimise the rejection rate of feed-62 stocks. Retail and consumer demands drive the market63 and tough food safety regulations invoke penalties for64 non-compliance with hygiene and quality requirements.65 Characteristically, 40% or even as much as 50% of the

1

7 *8 Tel.: +44-1707-285253; fax:+44-1707-285258.910 E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Hyde),11 [email protected] (A. Smith), [email protected] (M.12 Smith), [email protected] (S. Henningsson).1

DTD v4.1.0

2

3 0959-6526/01/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.4 PII: S0959-6526 (00)00050-05

1 JCLP: Journal of Cleaner Production - ELSEVIER2 24-10-00 10:50:39 Rev 15.07x JCLP$$632P

66raw vegetable or salad by weight may be rejected at vari-67ous stages along a production line. Some hygienic and68nourishing substandard food products are available that69may exhibit physical attributes considered ‘flaws’ by70principal retailers. Some of these substandard food pro-71ducts may be sold for use in prisons or hospitals but, in72general, market barriers restrict the use of such products73for other applications. In the case of the disposal of74putrescible and biodegradable wastes, the logical sol-75utions include, wherever possible, the continuing use of76wastes for animal feedstocks. Additionally, the appli-77cation of composting solutions, where appropriate, pro-78vides a mechanism for waste food materials as condi-79tioners and fertilisers to be returned to the soil, thus80providing a clear life-cycle benefit.81Of all the manufacturing industries, the food industry

121 582 K. Hyde et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 57–64

3

82 makes the largest demand on packaging and finding83 ways to reduce this packaging quantity and its sub-84 sequent waste is a demanding task ([14]). In practice,85 optimised packaging criteria for the least environmental86 impact are often difficult to define without extensive dia-87 logue. The needs of the consumer, the requirements of88 the supermarket and the optimisation available to the89 producer or manufacturer may variously conflict with90 one another. The Producer Responsibility Obligations91 (Packaging Waste) Regulations (1997) [18] have gone92 some way towards defining companies’ environmental93 responsibilities associated with packaging. Nevertheless94 the Regulations have done little so far to stimulate pro-95 ducers, suppliers and consumers to act on their collective96 supply chain responsibilities.97 In order for waste minimisation to provide continuing98 environmental improvement in the key areas of99 putrescible wastage and packaging, improved consensus100 and dialogue is required between purchasers, including101 both consumers and the major supermarkets, and those102 that produce and manufacture. Better market opport-103 unities and incentives are required for second-grade food104 products and for compost products. If waste minimis-105 ation in all aspects of the food and drink industry is to106 be achievable, supermarkets of the future must actively107 pursue and disseminate purchasing policies based on bet-108 ter supply chain optimisation according to environmental109 criteria and objectives. Food producers and manufac-110 turers must give greater priority to reducing raw material111 wastage as far as practically possible and to identifying112 the process options that result in a lower waste burden.113 Contractual agreements must be agreed to reinforce114 these options and good alternative uses or composting115 solutions for wasted raw material must be found.

116 2. The food and drink industry in the UK

117 Consumer spending on food, as defined by the Key118 Note Market Review on UK food ([11]) was £42.5bn in119 1997. Almost 420,000 businesses are involved in farm-120 ing, food production and food services in the UK;121 approximately 59% of these are in food processing and122 farming, while the remainder include retailing, wholesa-123 ling and catering. There is an annual trade deficit in the124 food sector that was estimated to be in excess of £7.25bn125 in 1997.126 Food sales in 1997 comprised 28.1% meat and meat127 products, 26.3% fruit and vegetables, 18.2% bread and128 bakery products, 17.3% milk and dairy products, 4.8%129 fish and fish products, 4.7% other food products, and130 0.7% sugar.131 Fresh fruit sales have benefited from increased cus-132 tomer awareness of health and nutrition issues and fruit133 sales increased in 1997. The vegetables sector has seen134 a decline in sales due to the weakness of the potato mar-

1


135ket and increasing pressure from foods such as pasta and136rice. However, sales of other vegetables have increased137both in fresh vegetables and in convenience, prepacked138and prepared salads and vegetables.139In 1997, sales of packaging to the food and drink140industry were estimated at £5.82bn, which amounted to141over half of the total value of the packaging industry142([10]). According to the Key Note Market Report on143Packaging (Food and Drink) (1998):

144the food and drink industry is at the forefront of145packaging design, and manufacturers and designers146are very dependent on the attitudes of the major147national grocery supermarket chains, which account148for the bulk of their sales.

149An assessment of environmental reporting and the150implementation of environmental management systems151in the UK has shown that of 722 certifications to ISO15214001, only 16 have been in the food and drink sector153and out of 66 certifications to EMAS, none is in the154food and drink sector. Furthermore, of 2314 world-wide155certifications to ISO 14001, 37 of these have been in156food and drink businesses, representing approximately1572% of the world-wide certifications (M. A. Smith,158unpublished).

1593. Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink160Industry; a demonstration project for East Anglia

161In 1997 this Waste Minimisation Project was initiated162in East Anglia as a partnership between ten organisations163and companies including Business Link Norfolk and164Waveney, the University of Hertfordshire, March Con-165sulting Ltd, the Environment Agency, Environmental166Technology Best Practice Programme (ETBPP), Tesco167Stores plc, Anglian Water Services, Norfolk County168Council, British Standards Institution (BSi) and East169Anglian Business Environment Club (EABEC) ([20]).170The aim of the Project was to promote waste minimis-171ation as a means of improving environmental perform-172ance, profitability and competitiveness. This has been173achieved by establishing a Waste Minimisation Business174Club through which training and technical support in175waste minimisation is provided to members.176The Business Club met according to a prescribed177training programme, the outline of which was agreed at178the inception of the project by the funding bodies, the179member companies subsequently having an opportunity180to suggest variations to the programme. The training pro-181gramme was specifically designed to address a broad182range of issues from mass balance and materials loss183calculations to project management skills in waste mini-184misation. The programme provided three components to185every training day: first, the taught workshop sessions;


3

186 second, the progress sharing sessions; and finally, the187 ‘fast track’ training on specific technologies and tech-188 niques associated with, for example, water-saving189 devices, energy-saving devices and monitoring and tar-190 geting software. The software capability enables compa-191 nies to accurately track consumption according to many192 variables such as utility and raw materials, and enables193 objective targets to be set for reducing consumption.194 Initially, 15 businesses were recruited to join the195 Waste Minimisation Business Club, ranging from a196 small family-run hotel and other SMEs to large compa-197 nies employing in excess of 1000 employees during peak198 summer months. The range of businesses includes com-199 panies that produce vegetable products, meat products200 and baked beans, frozen desserts, condiments, soft201 drinks, beer, wines, a cold store operation, a charity202 housing trust and a sandwich maker. A description of203 the companies according to their size and structure is204 given by [12].205 Two of the principal objectives of the East Anglian206 Waste Minimisation Project were the assessment of the207 volumes, sources and methods for minimising208 putrescible and other raw material waste and packaging209 waste. Evidence drawn from the Project has produced210 the observations and conclusions discussed later in this211 paper: specific examples are provided where appropriate.

212 4. Waste production from the food and drink213 industry in East Anglia

214 Waste arisings from the food and drink industry con-215 tribute significantly to the total arisings of Commercial216 and Industrial (CI) wastes in East Anglia. Typical esti-217 mated figures are given in Table 1, reproduced from the218 Norfolk County Council ‘Waste Management Plan for219 Norfolk, 1996’. These estimates were based on question-

7

8 Table 19 Commercial and industrial waste (CI waste) and construction arisings10 from primary sources. Tonnages estimated for 1993/94 by Norfolk11 County Council12

19

Commercial/industrial activity by 1993/94 Percentage ofSIC categories Estimated total (%)

tonnage27

34

Food, Drink, Tobacco 474,629 30Manufacturing (aggregated)39

Wholesale Distribution 292,073 18(excluding Scrap and Waste)44

Construction 177,723 1148

Water Supply Industry 119,542 852

Retail Distribution 65,533 456

Hotels and Catering 50,878 360

Total CI waste in top six sectors 1,159,468 7564

Total CI waste from all sectors 1,585,05367

74

Source: Norfolk County Council (1996) [16].

1


220naire surveys carried out at sample companies from each221Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) sector. The SIC222categories are shown in Table 1 in preference to the223NACE categories since SIC codes were used during a224complicated data collation process. The estimates can be225taken to relate to production over a 12-month period,226although different companies produced annual estimates227according to different bases and periods. Table 1 shows228that the largest single SIC category is ‘Food, Drink, Tob-229acco Manufacturing’ (SIC 41–42), providing an esti-230mated 30% of the total arisings of CI wastes. If this esti-231mate is added to the arisings from ‘Hotels and Catering’232(SIC code 66), an aggregate contribution to total arisings233in Norfolk of over 33% is obtained. It has not been poss-234ible to determine the tonnages of tobacco wastes, for the235purpose of excluding them from this total.236The variety of different types of wastes arising from237‘Food, Drink, Tobacco Manufacturing’ and from ‘Hotels238and Catering’ ranges from putrescible and biodegradable239matter, which is rejected from the product line, to pack-240aging waste, glass, waste processing oils and other gen-241eral commercial or factory wastes. In practice, it is diffi-242cult to gain a clear idea of the relative amounts of243various types of wastes arising from the food and drink244manufacturing and catering sectors. The disaggregation245by types of waste is given in Table 2 as a total value246for all sectors so that, for example, ‘domestic/canteen247waste’ arisings include putrescible canteen wastes from248all sectors. Table 2 shows these survey data collected by249the then Waste Regulation Authority and reported in the250Norfolk County Council ‘Waste Management Plan,2511996’.

2525. Observations and results from the East Anglian253Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink254Industry Project: putrescible and other raw255material waste

256The East Anglian Waste Minimisation Project ident-257ified a common characteristic of salad and vegetable pro-77

78Table 279Waste arisings according to types of commercial and industrial waste.80Tonnages estimated for 1993/94 by Norfolk County Council 81

88

Type of waste 1993/94 Percentage ofestimated total (%)tonnage 95

102

Food processing waste 114,993 11 106

Domestic/canteen waste 15,788 1 110

Vegetable oils 10,917 1 114

Vegetable waste 1695 0.2 118

Total for these categories 143,393 13 122

Total for all types of commercial 1,094,416and industrial waste 126

133

Source: Norfolk County Council (1996) [16].


3

258 duct manufacturing—that raw material yields typically259 fall within the range 60–70% of the gross raw material260 input. Raw material wastage typically falls between 30261 to 40% of the gross raw material input, although in some262 cases up to 50% wastage has been observed during the263 East Anglian Waste Minimisation Project. These levels264 of wastage have been observed in the preparation of raw265 vegetables for supermarket shelves such as broccoli266 heads and onion packs, and in convenience, prepacked267 and prepared salads and chopped vegetables. Where268 many thousands of tonnes of raw material are processed269 per day, thousands of tonnes of raw material waste are270 produced as a result. The significance of such figures is271 supported by the data shown in Table 2 for Norfolk,272 where the contribution to total waste arisings in 1993–273 94 from food processing waste and vegetable waste was274 11% of all wastes recorded.275 Much of this mass of food and vegetable waste is sent276 to landfill. Landfill, however, will be more heavily regu-277 lated in future since the European Directive on the Land-278 fill of Waste ([3]) was adopted. This Directive requires279 the characteristics of waste to be better defined and280 wastes will only be accepted if they are exempt from281 treatment or have been pre-treated. Specifically, the282 amount of organic or biodegradable waste to be283 deposited in landfill sites will be controlled with the ulti-284 mate objective of stimulating the use of these wastes for285 compost feedstock.286 Some substandard or ‘seconds’ standard food products287 may be sold on for use in prisons or state-funded hospi-288 tals, but market barriers prevent these products from289 being available to other consumers. The definition of290 substandard does not imply a lack of hygiene or291 nutritional quality, only that the visual characteristics292 may be impaired, as permitted by hospital purchasing293 guidelines. Some manufacturers experience an increas-294 ing stockpile of such products in coldstore. Ultimately,295 if these products are not sold, they, like the substandard296 raw material, will have to be discarded.297 In the case of the disposal of putrescible/298 biodegradable wastes, logical solutions indicate the con-299 tinuing use of wastes for animal feedstocks, and the300 application of composting technology. Both these sol-301 utions return nutrients to soil and to the food chain, thus302 providing a very suitable life-cycle benefit.303 In principle, composting facilities present an ideal sol-304 ution to the challenge of turning food waste into a valu-305 able product. The ways forward for composting are not306 clearly defined and few cooperative schemes have been307 established in Norfolk to date. A small number of com-308 posting schemes are currently under discussion although,309 typically, many different challenges have to be overcome310 before any one scheme can be clearly identified as being311 commercially viable. Finding a suitable location,312 obtaining planning permission and securing a good com-313 bination of mutually suitable, guaranteed feedstocks are

1


314all symptomatic of the state of the technology at present.315The DETR consultation document on the waste strategy316for England and Wales ([5]) comments that ‘it has been317more difficult to develop larger scale commercial com-318posting schemes’ than household schemes. Nevertheless,319a recent survey by The Composting Association (1997)320[19] showed that the proportion of biodegradable waste321entering composting schemes from commercial sectors322in the UK has risen from 2% of feedstocks in 1993 to32323% in 1997. This indicates that, since the volumes of324material being composted have steadily risen between3251993 and 1997, there is a growing commitment to the326collection of biodegradable waste for composting from327commercial sectors of industry. The need for a stable328market for compost products is a further challenge that329requires systematic and strategic development support330by government and government agencies, local auth-331orities and businesses ([4]).332The technical feasibility of using food waste has been333principally questioned in relation to uncertainties sur-334rounding the homogeneity of the process of destruction335of pathogens during composting. Maintaining a high336enough temperature within the compost piles ([6,15])337enables the process of pathogen destruction. However,338effective management regimes, such as compost turning,339are essential to ensure the homogeneity of pathogen340destruction throughout the compost mass ([17]). Con-341trols and evidence of strict operating criteria are required342to demonstrate that food waste composting is conducted343safely to meet health and safety requirements.344The physico-chemical characteristics of biodegradable345food waste present operational challenges for many346reasons including complexity in obtaining suitable sec-347ondary feedstocks, handling and processing, transpor-348tation and public health, waste regulation and planning349control considerations. The East Anglian Waste Mini-350misation Project has produced industry-based obser-351vations that some food waste such as lettuce is difficult352to compost due to its high water and nitrogen content.353The lettuce can behave as a wet, dense mass that is dif-354ficult to aerate, since materials having a water content355of greater than 70% inhibit the flow of air ([1]). Suitable356mixing with other carbon-rich feedstocks that have a357strong matrix such as manure, straw or woody prunings,358within a short period following exit from the factory,359should assist the biochemical processing of the compost.360The drying of wet compost materials using waste heat361via a heat exchanger has also been proposed, but this362introduces additional maintenance and capital require-363ments and is, therefore, the poorer operational solution.364Tanimura and Antle, a large lettuce growing and pro-365cessing company in the Salina’s Valley, USA, adds all366of its waste lettuce to a composting scheme ([2]). The367lettuce provides the essential balance of moisture368required by this process and the finished compost is369applied on the company’s lettuce fields.


3

370 Operational evidence from the USA demonstrated by371 Kunzler and Farrell (1996) [13] indicates that the mini-372 misation of waste disposal costs is focusing increasingly373 on the opportunities presented by food composting. The374 majority of the sites surveyed in 1995 had continued to375 thrive by 1996 and, in some cases, had increased the376 amount or diversity of food waste accepted. In all, 138377 sites were surveyed for the 1996 survey accepting a wide378 range of different feedstocks from cafeteria waste, super-379 market and wholesale waste to food manufacturing380 residuals. Kunzler and Farrell (1996) [13] indicate that381 by-products from a Nestle factory are composted as well382 as brewery sludge in New York, and cranberry residuals383 from Ocean Spray are composted in Wisconsin. A384 sugary slurry from an ice-cream factory is composted in385 Vermont and a number of farm sites are composting fish386 residuals. A recent survey in Biocycle ([9]) showed that387 there are now 25 composting projects in the food pro-388 cessing industry in the USA.389 Many of these American food businesses are reported390 to be likely to be offered tip fees at composting sites of391 around half or less that of the ‘local disposal option’,392 offering a clear financial advantage. The biggest savings393 are reported by institutions that conduct on-site com-394 posting.395 Also reported in this American survey is the obser-396 vation that the majority of sites still utilise outdoor wind-397 rows. Fifteen of the sites employ some kind of static398 pile (with or without aeration) and 11 use some form399 of agitated bay or vessel processing. No comments are400 provided on any observed operating criteria or problems401 encountered due to the maintenance of such criteria.402 Kunzler and Farrell (1996) [13] comment that regulat-403 ory barriers continue to present a challenge in relation to404 the composting of food waste. Some states are drafting405 provisions in their composting regulations to treat406 source-separated organic wastes differently within the407 law. Ten states have draft regulations in process and in408 California, Texas and Washington, provisions for409 source-separated organic wastes have been achieved.410 In the UK, the DETR Composting Development411 Group recently presented their ‘Report on the develop-412 ment and expansion of markets for compost’ ([4]). Sadly,413 little attention was directed towards market factors asso-414 ciated with feedstock sources and feedstock compati-415 bility. This has already been shown to be an important416 factor affecting the viability of the composting of food417 and vegetable wastes since other suitable compostable418 wastes are required for mixing.

419 6. Observations and results from the East Anglian420 Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink421 Industry Project: packaging waste

422 The East Anglian Waste Minimisation Project423 obtained industry-based information demonstrating that

1


424food producers and manufacturers have a number of425viable and available options for reducing the weight of426primary packaging; additionally, manufacturers and pro-427ducers are likely to have several options for eliminating428or reducing the amount of secondary packaging. Many429factors are involved in the successful identification of430the most suitable options and their implementation.431Consideration is given first to food safety and hygiene432when assessing the suitability of packaging of food pro-433ducts. Furthermore, if environmental criteria are then434added, the packaging solutions for food products become435more complex. Additionally, supermarket specifications436impose constraints and these specifications may conflict437with an optimum packaging solution chosen according438to environmental criteria. In many cases, it is the retailer439specifications that are not flexible in terms of finding440compromise packaging specifications.441In one example, the number of bottles packed per box442is limited to 6 as specified by the supermarket rather443than the standard 12. This requires:

444O 445more packaging weight to every 12 bottles than is446strictly required to protect the product; and447O 448higher packaging costs per 12 bottles.

449In another example, top-grade vegetables have portions450shaved off in order to meet the contract specification for451the number of items per crate. Alternative uses for the452waste portions are limited although uses for other453rejected portions have been found. If the bulk purchase454contract specified sale by absolute weight rather than by455price per heads of vegetable, the objective of reducing456raw material wastage might be more achievable.457In a third example, a gross weight of vegetables is458packed according to a provisional order size so that they459are ready for quick despatch. Upon receiving the final460confirmation order, the actual requirement is frequently461smaller than that required by the provisional order. The462unwanted vegetables then have to be unpacked in order463to make them available for resorting and relabelling and464the packaging goes to waste. In this case, it is not oper-465ationally feasible to simply change the outer labelling466since the vegetables will attract different batch specifi-467cations and despatch dates.468Each supermarket places different specifications on469the packaging of any one vegetable. In a recent survey470of celeriac production it was found that different super-471markets impose different packaging specifications per472vegetable head:

473O 474two supermarkets require cling-film packaging and475a label;476O 477one supermarket requires no cling-film packaging and478no label;479O 480one supermarket does not require cling-film packag-481ing but specifies a label to be attached directly to the482vegetable head.


3

483 The latter specification is difficult to fulfil in practice484 due to poor adhesive properties.485 In 1992 the UK Government set targets for reducing486 packaging so that, by December 1997, 50–65% of all487 packaging waste would be recovered, of which 24–25%488 would be recycled. Following the 1994 EC Directive on489 Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC), the UK490 Government legislated for recovery and recycling targets491 under the Producer Responsibility Obligations492 (Packaging Waste) Regulations (1997) [18]. Under these493 regulations the ‘producer’ is defined as owning the pack-494 aging that he supplies whether it be to another stage in495 the supply chain or to the final user of the packaging.496 The targets for recovery and recycling set for producers497 by those Regulations have recently been revised follow-498 ing an Environment Agency consultation exercise (see499 Table 3).500 In practice, optimised packaging criteria designed to501 produce the least environmental impact are difficult to502 define without extensive dialogue. The various require-503 ments of the supermarket, the needs of the consumer and504 the optimisation available to the producer or manufac-505 turer may give rise to conflicting demands. The Producer506 Responsibility Regulations have gone some way towards507 defining individual environmental responsibilities asso-508 ciated with packaging, but have done little so far to509 stimulate producers, suppliers and consumers to act on510 their conjunctive supply chain responsibilities.511 The East Anglian Waste Minimisation Project has512 demonstrated that the designing of packaging criteria to513 meet wide-ranging waste minimisation requirements514 produces significant financial savings. Extensive and515 open dialogue between supplier and supermarket is516 required in order to achieve further progress in objec-517 tively optimised packaging criteria.

518 7. Contemporary challenges in the food and drink519 industry: results from the East Anglian Waste520 Minimisation Project case study

521 Since June 1997, Fisher Chilled Foods (FCF) in522 Methwold has been a part of the Albert Fisher Group523 plc, a major international food group operating across136

137 Table 3138 Environment Agency revised recovery and recycling targets139

146

Year National producer National producerrecovery target (%) recycling target (%

per material)153

160

1998 38 7164

1999 43 10168

2000 45 13172

2001 onwards 52 16176

183

Source: DoE (1997) [7]; Environment Agency (1999) [8].

1


524the world in the sourcing, processing and distribution of525fruit, vegetables and seafood. The Methwold site runs a52624-hours-a-day operation, employs 750 people and has527a £45 million turnover. The factory is split into two pro-528duction areas of which the main activity, 75% by volume529of raw material, is the production of bags of mixed leaf530salads and shredded lettuce. The remainder of the vol-531ume of raw material is used in bowls and punnets con-532taining mixed and layered salads with dressings.533Raw vegetables and salad supplies are received on site534from growers in the UK or Spain, depending on the sea-535son. The supplies are trimmed, shredded or chopped and536then washed in chilled chlorinated water. Products are537dried and packed in bags, bowls or punnets. Thereafter538they are labelled and collated into cardboard cases or539recyclable plastic crates before despatching on pallets.540Their production mainly serves three large retailers and541one large food service customer in the UK.542As part of FCF’s approach to strategic environmental543management, the company joined the East Anglian544Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink Industry Pro-545ject. A site-based steering group for waste minimisation546was established, which not only helped to identify547opportunities for reducing waste production but also cre-548ated clear employee ownership of improvement targets.549From an early stage, top priority was given to increas-550ing raw material yield. Raw material costs of over £20551million per annum were directly compared to the site’s552average yield of about 60%. As the company estimated553a 5% improvement in yield was feasible, the potential554saving of £1 million per annum would be ten times555greater than any other potential saving identified.556In order to show where the raw material improvement557could be made, an extensive monitoring programme was558set up to follow the raw material flow from delivery to559final product. This was a demanding operation given that560there are six key types of raw materials (mainly lettuces)561and up to 20 other minor ingredients, including herbs.562The installation of a check weighing system for563incoming raw materials and for process waste has been564a precondition for the identification of savings achieved.565The area of production contributing to the greatest raw566material wastage was swiftly identified as the trimming567area where offcuts are generated by operators. In order568to focus attention on reducing this waste, a combination569of detailed operator training and targeted managerial570supervision of trimming was introduced. Operators were571given increased flexibility and could take into account572the diversity and condition of the different raw materials.573This work has so far resulted in savings of £100,000 per574year with an associated cost of £30,000.575Many of the cumulative savings did not involve capi-576tal costs for new equipment but were achieved by ques-577tioning current work practices and by making incremen-578tal improvements. Overall, 4.5% of raw material costs


3

579 have been saved through this approach and the raw580 material yield has improved by a similar proportion.

581 8. Discussion of strategies for future improvements582 in reducing putrescible raw material and packaging583 waste

584 This improvement in yield of 5% reported by the East585 Anglian Waste Minimisation Project has produced a586 reduction in solid waste generation approaching 12%587 using the type of site-based waste minimisation practices588 described in the case study. Given the significant weight589 of raw material wastage from certain food production590 lines, this is a surprisingly small percentage improve-591 ment. It nevertheless represents financial savings equiv-592 alent to 1% or better of turnover and a significant593 increase in revenue per tonne of raw material, achieved594 through savings in raw material costs, landfill costs and595 waste transport costs.596 Furthermore, the evidence provided by the East Angl-597 ian Waste Minimisation Project demonstrates that598 improved dialogue and consensus is required between599 consumers and the major supermarkets, and between the600 major supermarkets and producers and manufacturers.601 This will stimulate and enable further opportunities for602 waste minimisation and continuing environmental603 improvement in the key areas of putrescible wastage and604 packaging. The drive for environmental reporting and605 the implementation of environmental management sys-606 tems is likely to focus attention on the food and drink607 sector in the early years of this millennium.608 Optimised purchasing policies have the potential to609 make an important contribution to company image. If610 waste minimisation in all aspects of the food and drink611 industry is to be achievable, supermarkets of the future612 must actively pursue and disseminate purchasing poli-613 cies based on better supply chain optimisation according614 to environmental criteria and objectives. A responsibility615 of the food producers and manufacturers is to identify616 the process options that result in a lower waste burden,617 pursuing contractual agreements that reinforce these618 options.619 It is highly desirable that the food and drink manufac-620 turers trading associations should promote dialogue in621 order to encourage better supply chain cooperation in622 relation to:

623 O624 packaging specifications;625 O626 packaging weights and the associated packaging obli-627 gations that often affect both producer and supermar-628 ket.

629 Optimised packaging objectives incorporating waste630 reduction criteria must be subjected to a process of631 extensive and open dialogue between supplier and super-

1


632market, consulting customers in the market place. Of633great significance to such an improving dialogue would634be an ‘open book’ policy between the supermarkets and635consumers, whereby consumers could contribute to pur-636chasing discussions. Following dialogue with both sup-637pliers and customers, supermarkets will be in an advan-638tageous position to disseminate information on their639purchasing policies. These policies are able to apply640market pressure to achieve better supply chain optimis-641ation according to environmental criteria and objectives,642and will be likely to contribute in turn to customer643affirmation and spending behaviour.644A shared savings business model has recently been645described ([21]) as an arrangement between supermarket646and supplier whereby both receive financial incentives647for reducing resource inputs and waste. This type of648arrangement has received some attention in the US and649is reported to have achieved success.650Alternative uses for food production waste must be651sought. In some cases, vegetable waste is of prime qual-652ity and is only rejected from the production line as a653result of standardisation requirements or supermarket654specification. In these cases offcuts may be sold on for655use in soups or baby food.656Better market opportunities and incentives are657required for the supply of second-grade food products658and for compost products incorporating food production659waste. While the DETR Composting Development660Group is currently addressing matters surrounding the661market opportunities for compost, there is little indi-662cation of specific initiatives supporting food composting.663Specific standards and guidelines on food composting664are urgently required.665Other novel approaches to using food and drink pro-666duction wastes will be required, such as applications in667natural dyes or in other natural products such as toiletries668or cosmetics.

6699. Conclusions

670O 671If waste minimisation in all aspects of the food and672drink industry is to be achievable, all sectors of this673industry must actively pursue and disseminate poli-674cies based on supply chain optimisation according to675environmental criteria and waste reduction objectives.676O 677Food producers and manufacturers must give greater678priority to reducing raw material wastage as far as679practically possible, and to finding good alternative680uses or composting solutions for wasted raw material.681O 682The challenge of reducing the volume and weight of683packaging used by food producers and manufacturers684must be pursued determinedly by manufacturers,685supermarkets and consumers.686O 687Consulting the producers, suppliers and customers688must play a key role in the future of this industry as


3

689 well as a greater openness in purchasing and other690 areas of food policy.

691 Acknowledgements

692 Personal communications from John Brigham, Nor-693 folk County Council, and Paul Hayward, Environment694 Agency, in 1998.

695 References

696 [1] Atlas R, Bartha R. Microbial ecology. 3rd ed. San Francisco:697 Benjamin Cummings, 1993.698 [2] Block D. Composter teams up with lettuce grower. Biocycle699 1998;38(4):59–61.700 [3] Council of the European Union directive 1999/31/EC on the land-701 fill of waste. European Union OJ L182/1. Brussels, 16 July 1999.702 [4] DETR, Department of the Environment, Transport and the703 Regions secretariat to the Composting Development Group.704 Report of the Composting Development Group on the develop-705 ment and expansion of markets for compost. DETR 98EP0277.706 July 1998.707 [5] DETR, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.708 Less waste more value: consultation paper on the waste strategy709 for England and Wales. DETR: London, 1998.710 [6] Diaz LF, Savage GM, Eggerth LL, Golueke CG. Composting and711 recycling municipal solid waste. London: Lewis, 1993.712 [7] DoE, Department of the Environment. The Producer Responsi-713 bility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 User’s714 Guide, 96EP288.

1


715[8] Environment Agency. Environment agencies consult on revised716interpretation of packaging, Reference 024/99. EA Head Office717Press Office, March 1999.718[9] Glenn J. The state of garbage in America. Biocycle7191998;38(4):59–61.720[10] Greasby L. Packaging (food and drink). Key Note Market Report,7213rd ed., Hampton, UK: Key Note Ltd, 1998. ISBN 1-85765-722860-4.723[11] Howitt S. (ed.) UK food market. Key Note Market Review, 10th724ed., 1988. ISBN 1-85765-846-9.725[12] Hyde K, Tolliday J, Smith A. Waste minimisation strategies: a726comparison of their implementation at large companies and727SMEs. The 1998 Business Strategy and the Environment Confer-728ence, 17–18 September, Leeds, UK.729[13] Kunzler C, Farrell M. Food service composting update. A730biocycle/food for the earth survey biocycle. Journal of Com-731posting and Recycling 1996;37(5):1996.732[14] Lillford PJ, Edwards MF. Clean technology in food processing.733Philos Trans R Soc London A 1997;355(1728):1363–71.734[15] Manser AGR, Keeling AA. Practical handbook of processing and735recycling municipal waste. London: CRC Press, 1996.736[16] Norfolk County Council, Planning and Transportation. A waste737management plan for Norfolk, 1996.738[17] Polprasert C. Organic waste recycling: technology and manage-739ment. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.740[18] Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regu-741lations, SI 1997/6487.742[19] The Composting Association. The state of composting in the UK.743A blueprint for action. HDRA Publications, 1997. ISBN 2-87263-7440-19-8.745[20] Tolliday J, Hyde K, Smith A. A discussion of the business club746approach as a mechanism for stimulating waste minimisation in747the food and drink sector. The 1998 Business Strategy and the748Environment Conference, 17–18 September, Leeds, UK.749[21] Woods C. Waste minimisation: where is it going? Wastes Man-750agement, October 1998, p. 37. 751752

Documents

The challenge of waste minimisation in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in East Anglia, UK