Life Cycle Assessment Comparison For Medical Nutrition Packaging

Introduction: The demand for medical nutrition (food for special medical purposes) is constantly increasing, as is the need for environmentally friendly packaging solutions. Against this background, three types of packaging were examined with regard to their ecological footprint.

Objectives: The aim was a comparative life cycle analysis (LCA) of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP) and beverage carton (BC, associated with Tetra Pak), for a 200 ml portion of medical nutrition using the example of Omanda AG. The results should help decision-makers, clinics and manufacturers to make an ecologically optimized packaging choice.

Methods: The LCA was carried out with the help of OpenLCA and the Ecoinvent database (version 3.10). Three defined comparisons were examined:

• Comparison 1: Considers only the raw materials of the packaging (PET vs. PP vs. BC), without transportation or further packaging.

• Comparison 2: Compares PET with powder content vs. PET with liquid content, each with a production site in the EU and in Switzerland (CH). As the study is designed for sales in Switzerland, production in EU creates a longer transportation route.

• Comparison 3: Examines PET (liquid, CH, recycled), PP (liquid, EU, no recycling) and BC (liquid, EU, no recycling) as a case study for Omanda AG.

Raw material manufacture, production and disposal were examined. The functional unit was a 200 ml portion. The Global Warming Potential (GWP100) served as the environmental indicator.

Results: In the material analysis (comparison 1), the beverage carton showed the best result with ~85% lower GWP than PP and ~74% lower GWP than PET. In the transport scenarios (comparisons 2 and 3), production locations (EU vs. CH), product form (powder vs. liquid) and recycling rates influenced the result. PP packaging had the highest GWP in all scenarios.

Conclusion: Beverage cartons had the lowest greenhouse gas potential. Local recycling structures, short transport routes and powder products to reduce transport weight can further reduce the environmental impact. Drinking foods in PP packaging have the worst environmental footprint. A conscious choice of packaging can therefore make a significant contribution to reducing the environmental impact of medical nutrition without compromising quality or safety requirements [1].

Interessenkonflikte

: A. Mettler: None DeclaredM.-L. Gopsill: None DeclaredK. Styger: None DeclaredL. Tschanz Employee of: Omanda Medical NutritionR. Banz Employee of: Omanda Medical NutritionM. Meier: None Declared

• References

• 1 Agarski B. et al. “Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of Plastic Cap Production, Packaging, and Disposal.”. Journal of Environmental Management 2019; 245 pp 55-65

Publication History

Article published online:
25 May 2025