[雙語翻譯]食品包裝外文翻譯--可持續(xù)食品包裝設(shè)計框架

1、7500 英文單詞， 英文單詞，4.1 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 1.2 萬字 萬字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Grönman K, Soukka R, Järvi‐Kääriäinen T, et al. Framework for sustainable food packaging design[J]. Packaging Technology and Science, 201

2、3, 26(4): 187-200.Framework for Sustainable Food Packaging DesignKaisa Grönman, Risto Soukka, Terhen Järvi-Kääriäinen, Juha-Matti Katajajuuri, Mika Kuisma, Heta-Kaisa Koivupuro, Margareetta Ollil

3、a, Marja Pitkänen,Olli Miettinen, Frans Silvenius, Rabbe Thun, Helena Wessman and Lassi LinnanenThe environmental impacts of packages have been found to be relatively small compared with the food items they contain.

4、 Furthermore, from the environmental and operational point of view, the most significant task of the package is to protect the product, which is important to acknowledge in the packaging design process. This study introd

5、uces a guiding framework for designing sustainable food packaging. In this approach, the entire life cycle of the product–package combination is taken into consideration. The emphasis is on the prevention of food losses

6、in packaging design as a major environmental criterion. Consideration of the properties of both the package and the product itself when designing the final package will lead to a better end result with smaller product lo

7、sses and environmental impacts. By using different assessment methods in the different stages of the packaging design, the sustainability of the package can be enhanced. The decision making of the packaging designer is f

8、acilitated with methods that are introduced step by step and in a certain order that will also allow for corrective measures through back-loops in the design process. The purpose is to integrate sustainability aspects at

9、 all stages firmly into the design process. KEY WORDS: packaging design; food losses; environmental impacts; sustainabilityINTRODUCTIONWhen considering packages, the dominating environmental issues in the recent past hav

10、e been material use and recycling possibilities. Packaging is often still considered only as a burden for the environ- ment and as annoying waste, which fills our trash cans and landfills. We should look beyond this dist

11、racting and to some extent false assumption and remind ourselves about the main task of packaging: it is to protect and distribute the right product to the right end-user in a safe, cost-efficient and user-friendly way.

12、A packaging that fails to fulfil these tasks will lead to unnecessary waste due to damages of the packed products, thus causing great and completely redundant environmental impacts. Recent life cycle assessments indicate

13、 that the environmental impacts of packaging are small compared with the environmental impacts of the packed food products. The environmental impacts of the food losses – if they occur – constitute a greater share of env

14、ironmental impacts than the production of the package containing the food. For example in life cycle assessments made for rye bread and cold cuts, the carbon footprint of packages was found to constitute only 1–3% share

15、 of the carbon footprint of the whole product–package combination. For polypropylene packages of a soy- based drink, the share of the package was found to be a bit higher, 10–13%. Also the other studied environmental cat

16、egories, eutrophication and acidification, showed similar results indicating low environmental impacts for the package. As an exception, products such as beverages have lower environmental impacts because of water being

17、 the major raw material in the production, and therefore, the relative contribution of packages of the product–package combination is found to be higher, if the depletion of water resources or the damage to water system

18、is considered to be irrelevant in the studied system.area where the package is planned to be used, and therefore, some screening of the criteria is reasonable.Some tools that are based at least partly on life cycle asse

19、ssment (LCA) are also in use, e.g. the PIQET Tool and the Pack-In Tool by Envirowise. These tools are meant to be used by the packaging designers themselves. There have been positive experiences of the use of PIQET in th

20、e packaging development industry, and thus it provides an affordable and practical LCA-based assistance to the decision-making process. Using methods with too limited scope and depth, which may be the case with the Pack-

21、In tool, there may be a risk of oversimplification or mistakes in the interpretation of system boundaries or results. Also the defining of the functional unit may be restricted. Rebitzer et al. recommend the use of a bro

22、ad, function-based functional unit to minimize the differences in studied product system alternatives.Analysing the total life cycle impacts with the help of LCA provides a systematic assessment of the environmental load

23、 of the packaging if the principles of LCA are followed. The package cannot, however, be distinguished from the product it contains and assessed as an independent product. The problem with LCA concerning packages and foo

24、d products is that the food losses are often neglected. The packaged product would be important to include in the LCA study. As the environ- mental impacts of product losses are in most cases greater than those of the pr

25、oduction of the package, the environmental impacts of product losses at all stages of the life cycle should also be considered.Svanes et al. present a methodology for sustainable packaging design where several indicators

26、 are grouped into five main categories: environmental sustainability, distribution costs, product protection, market acceptance and user friendliness. Each category consists of a few indicators or methods to evaluate the

27、 particular category. The emphasis of this methodology is on the inclusion of also the indirect impacts of packaging (e.g. product losses, transport efficiency). However, in the methodology, the authors neither evaluate

28、the significance of these indicators compared with each other nor give any advice on how the packaging designer should operate in trade-off situations, although the spider diagrams used by Svanes et al. may be helpful in

29、 visualizing possible trade-offs. An LCA approach is recommended when analysing environmental trade-offs to help in decision-making situations. This approach presented by Svanes et al. does not give advice on at which po

30、int the packaging designer should use the suggested methods. This could hinder the day-to-day work of the packaging designer. As Svanes et al. note, a too complicated method will not be taken into use.21 A clear working

31、order that could be integrated in the design process might promote the use of these methodologies.In this paper, the framework for designing a sustainable product–package combination is presented for food items in condit

32、ions similar to those faced by the Finnish packaging industry. In order to maximize the benefits of checklists and other tools for sustainable packaging design, it is advantageous to adapt the package design to the produ

33、ct design phase. Integrated product–package development is suggested, e.g. by Bramklev. As the environmental impacts of the food products are usually higher than the impacts of the packages, this indicates the need to de

34、sign the product and the package simultaneously to optimize the comprehensiveness of the design process.The ultimate goal of this optimization is the prevention of product losses, or in this case, food losses. The approa

35、ch combines different evaluation methods to advise packaging designers in their goal to create a sustainable product–package combination. The presented framework is supposed to guide the packaging designer to implement t