mental Protection Act, 1990):
• any substance which constitutes a scrap material or an effluent or other surplus substance arising from the application of any process; and
• any substance or article which requires to be disposed of as being broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled, but does not include a substance which is explosive.
Wast e m anagem ent hierarchy
In the U K there is a waste management hierar-chy, that was first proposed by the G overn-ment in 1994 (H M SO, 1994).
T he waste hierarchy is:
• Reduction – this is the first priority for more sustainable waste management, involving reduction or minimisation of wastes at source.
• Reuse – this involves putting objects back into use so they do not enter the waste stream. A common example is the reuse of milk bottles.
• Recovery – the recovery of value or energy from waste materials; this incorporates material recycling, composting and the recovery of energy from waste.
• Disposal – this is the least attractive waste management option, usually landfill or incineration.
T he aim of the current waste management strategy is to reduce the burden of wastes on the environment and so move further up the hierarchy towards reduction and away from landfill; this was also the purpose of the landfill tax.
Target s for indust ry
T he government encourages industry to adopt better management practices (H M SO, 1995) and to ensure that sustainable development is taken into account when new products are being designed. Amongst other things busi-nesses are challenged to move towards a greater emphasis on waste minimisation. T he targets set for businesses include: 75 per cent of companies with more than 200 employees to have published environmental policies covering wastes issues by the end of 1999 and 50 per cent of similar concerns to have man-agement systems in place to realise such poli-cies in the time scale. T here are a wide range of agencies that can be contacted for advice on Nutrition & Food Science
Number 6 · November/December 1998 · pp. 330–334 © M CB University Press · ISSN 0034-6659
t he f ood a nd drink
indust ry
M argaret P. Bates and
Paul S . Phillips
The authors
M argaret P. Batesand Paul S. Phillipsare both at Nene University College, Northampton.
Abstract
how to meet these goals (Phillips et al., 1997), these include :
• Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme (ET BPP);
• Environmental Services Association; • G reen business clubs, set up by the
Adviso-ry C ommittee for Business and the Envi-ronment (AC BE);
• Business in the Environment; • Environment C ouncil;
• C BI’s environmental business forum groupings such as East M idlands Advisor y G roup on the Environment;
• Small C ompany Environmental & Energy M anagement Assistance Scheme
(SC EEM AS).
The real cost of w ast e
T he cost of waste is not only the cost of getting rid of it, but also the value of what you are getting rid of. Waste is costly to produce in terms of time, effort, energy and materials, in addition to the cost of disposal and harm to the environment. T he real cost of waste can be divided into two categories, the visible costs and the hidden costs (M arch C onsulting G roup, 1997).
Visible
• solid and liquid waste; • gaseous emissions; • by-products;
• hazardous/special waste.
H idden • re-work;
• energy inefficiency; • processing inefficiency;
• unrealised production capacity; • lost revenue, reduced profits; • potential liabilities;
• purchase costs of materials.
When we consider all these factors it becomes clear that the disposal costs are only the tip of the “wastes heap”.
What is w ast e m inim isat ion?
T he waste minimisation concept is a simple one; by using materials carefully so as to reduce the generation of waste, pollution is reduced, resources are conser ved and charges for waste disposal are minimised. Waste min-imisation is the reduction of waste at source, recognising that it is cheaper not to produce waste in the first place. A waste minimisation scheme by the control of material and energy
resources is good for business and it is good for the environment.
A waste minimisation programme will take all wastes costs, hidden and visible, into account. Waste minimisation begins by look-ing at what goes into the production processes and business operations (F igure 1). C ollection of basic cost data will identify the principal materials and energy resources used and indicate the areas where cost savings can be made.
T he first stage in a waste minimisation programme is to list all input materials (Envi-ronment Agency, 1998):
• Raw materials – essential materials used directly in the product.
• A ncillary materials – materials used indirect-ly for production, e.g. materials for clean-ing, maintenance and effluent treatment. • Consumable materials – materials for offices
(paper and toner cartridges), sales
(brochures and samples), personal protec-tive equipment.
• Packaging materials – materials used to pack and transport finished goods.
• Energy – fuel and electricity. Where possible separate fuel for space heating, process heating, vehicles and other energy sources. • Water – water from the water company
mains, boreholes, rivers, reservoirs.
Once the process inputs have been identified, the next stage is to list all the process outputs (Environmental Agency, 1998):
• Product – is a rework a major issue? What level of rejects does the process have? Is overfill or give away to customers an issue? • Emissions to air – often seen as a free of
charge disposal route. Includes boiler chimneys, extraction vents, also noise, dust and heat. T here can be significant costs associated with the monitoring and abate-ment of emissions.
RAW MATERIALS ANCILLARIES WATER ENERGY CONSUMABLES PACKAGING
PRODUCT
WASTE
SOLID & LIQUID TRADE EFFLUENT AIR EMISSIONS ENERGY
BUSINESS PROCESS
WASTE
Source: Environment Agency, 1998
• Waste water – discharges to trade and sur-face water runoff to watercourses or sewer. Effluent charges depend on the level of contamination – the amount of material being lost.
• S olid and liquid waste – the cost of removal of skip, drum and other wastes by waste man-agement contractors.
When the inputs and outputs are all identified it is then possible to identify all the costs relat-ed to each of them. M ost of these data can be found easily within company records or from suppliers. C ompanies should identify project teams and project champions. T he project team should be cross-functional and able to identify all of the areas of activity within the company and identify scope for improvement. It is best to encourage employees at all levels to become involved in the waste minimisation programme and gain ownership of the prob-lems and solutions. Project champions act as a focus and contact point both within the com -pany and for external agencies. Awareness and motivation of employees are key features of a successful waste minimisation strategy (M arch C onsulting G roup, 1997).
Why m inim ise w ast e?
Traditionally most waste from the food and drink industry has been landfilled, or dewa-tered and then landfilled. H owever, landfill is becoming an increasingly expensive route for this type of waste for several reasons:
• Reduced landfill void. H istorically landfill is the dominant waste management method for all wastes due to its low cost; however, by the year 2010 (Read et al., 1997) many regions in England will be suffering from a shortage of landfill void. A reduction in the availability of void space will also cause an increase in costs.
• Landfill tax. T he landfill tax currently stands at £ 7 a tonne on biodegradable waste but this is set to increase, from April 1999, to £ 10 a tonne. It is expected to rise in subsequent budgets with the increase in pressure for “green taxes”.
• Organic waste content of landfill. T he Euro-pean D raft Landfill D irective states that the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill should be reduced, with 25 per cent diverted from landfill by 2002, 50 per cent by 2005 and 75 per cent by 2010 (Rice, 1997).
Benefi t s of w ast e m inim isat ion
T here are many benefits to a shift away from disposal towards waste minimisation. T hese benefits can affect all aspects of a business, and they include:
• Financial savings. A survey of companies interested in waste minimisation in N orth Wales showed that 54 per cent of them did not know how much they spent on waste. T he Leicester Wastes M inimisation Initia-tive showed that participating companies which had estimated their wastes costs at £ 50,000 p.a. found them to be closer to £ 13m p.a., 4.5 per cent of turnover (Biffa Waste Services, 1994). Johnston and Stokes (1995) found that the larger the company the higher the savings, as a percentage of turnover with a median saving in the first year of 0.27 per cent of turnover. M any of the savings through waste minimisation relate to reduction in the consumption of raw materials as improvement in produc-tion efficiency is likely to affect the product materials. Reduction in wastes means a reduction in disposal charges and a reduc-tion in the pollureduc-tion potential can decrease disposal charges.
• Environmental management systems. Waste minimisation may be incorporated in envi-ronmental management schemes such as ISO 14001. Larger companies are increas-ingly requiring their suppliers to register with these or similar schemes. It will also be of value in Eco-labelling and audit schemes (Biffa Waste Services, 1994).
• Environmental image. With increasing pub-lic awareness of environmental and waste issues customers are choosing those compa-nies with good environmental profiles; this can actually be used in marketing, helping to publicise their success. On a local level environmentally responsible companies are considered “better neighbours”, this is also likely to effect a national or international image.
Case st udies
C ertain areas of the food and drink industry have well established waste minimisation programmes. In 1994, Biffa (1994) found that 95 per cent of the brewing industr y operated waste minimisation programmes (95 per cent also operated recycling programmes) but in the food and retailing sector only 25 per cent operated waste minimisation programmes. T here are many examples of the benefits that an effective waste minimisation programme can have on companies within the food and drink industry (see Table I).
H einz (baked beans) (Environm ental B est P ractice P rogram m e, undated (a)) T he baked bean sauce mixing operation is fully automated, powdered ingredients are blown into vessels on load cells in which pre-determined amounts are weighed out. T he ingredients are then fed into batching tanks, mixed and heated. T he sauce then is mixed with the beans, put into cans, sealed, sterilised and labelled. It was found that the yield of sauce was lower than expected based on the ingredients added. When this was investigated it was found that the load cells were under-weighing each batch of ingredients. T his accounted for an extra 4kg of ingredients being added to each 250kg batch (1.6 per cent). T he reason for the under-weighing was identified and rectified.
It was also found that it was unnecessary to heat the sauce batches to the normal 75°C to prevent microbial contamination, because of the acidity of the sauce the temperature limit could be lowered to 65°C with no risk of contamination. T he elimination of the under-weighing of ingredients by improving the maintenance procedures resulted in a saving of £ 38,000 p.a. T he 10°C drop in temperature has achieved £ 48,000 p.a. savings and a reduction in the pollution load of the effluent. Both these benefits were achieved with virtual-ly no cost.
H einz (soup) (Environm ental B est P ractice P rogram m e, undated (b)) All the white soups produced by H einz, e.g. chicken, mushroom and vegetable, are pro-duced using an emulsion of water, milk powder and vegetable oil. T he emulsion is blended prior to being heated, it is then passed to holding tanks where the other ingredients are added. T he soup is then fed into cans, lids added and the can sterilised, cooled, washed and labelled. It was found that when the milk powder was added to the water during mixing a foam was formed. T his foam affected the marker gauge and caused less oil to be added and therefore significantly reduced the sion yield. To prevent a shortfall excess emul-sion was produced, this was subsequently discharged as trade effluent. T he team investi-gated and found that if the oil was added to the water before the milk powder the problem could be overcome.
Another problem that was identified related to the life span of the emulsion. Four batches of emulsion were being mixed and held at any time. If there were delays on the filing line there was the possibility that the materials would reach their predetermined life span and therefore have to be discarded as waste. T he production was limited to two batches at a time, this reduced the stockpile of emulsion and so if there were any problems less raw material would be discarded. T he change in the emulsion mixing process achieved estimat-ed savings of £ 50,000 p.a. T he change in the filling line and stockpiling procedure saved an estimated £ 50,000 p.a. Both these benefits were achieved at no cost with just some proce-dural changes.
As part of Project C atalyst, a waste minimi-sation programme carried out in M erseyside, H J H einz identified 67 waste minimisation opportunities which resulted in annual savings of £ 2,198,000 (G ee, 1984).
Table I Summary of savings of food and drink companies involved in the Leicestershire Waste M inimisation Initiative
Number Approx. Number Rate of saving Rate of saving
Type of of turnover of after 1 year after 2 years
Company business employees (£m) projects (£’000 pa) (£’000 pa)
R F Brookes Chilled and frozen
convenience foods 650 38 6 50 248
Everards Brew ery Brew ery 120 35 10 19 34
KP Foods Snack foods 900 65 2 100 100
Anchor (dairy products) (Envirosense, undated)
Anchor Products Ltd is the largest dairy busi-ness in N ew Zealand. At its H autapu plant it implemented a large number of projects to minimise its impact on the environment. T hese include various waste minimisation projects, which have led to savings on costs and income from by products, resource recovery, product formulation and nitrogen reduction:
• wastewater minimisation: wastewater, between 10/92 and 10/93 was reduced by 130m3per day, while milk production was increased by 400m3per day. T his reduction resulted in savings of $20,000 per annum. • recovery of separator desludge: during the
separation of milk into skim and cream, a volume is discharged from the machine to clear the bowl. T his material was used as stock food. T his reduction in waste saves $10,000 per year in treatment and disposal costs.
• wash water recovery: milk contains over 85 per cent water when it arrives at the site; this is removed to form dry milk products. T he recovery of this water by evaporation and reverse osmosis allows water to be reused. T he potential reuse of water derived from milk has been identified as 2,500m3per day. A further reverse osmosis plant was installed on site with a goal of reusing up to 1,000m3 per day. T he system is currently operating at between 550 and 750m3per day. T his amounts to savings of $150,000 per year. • plant expansion and lactose recovery: the whey
protein concentrate (WPC ) plant was expanded with the aim of processing all the sweet whey on site and recovering all the permeate for lactose. Processing of sweet whey has increased by 57 per cent and the recovery of permeate by 254 per cent. T he increase in lactose recovery is approximately 50-70 tonnes per day. T he lactose recovered provides an income. U p to $5 million a year income is gained from these operations.
Conclusions
T he case for waste minimisation is well proven both in financial and environmental terms, however, there are still some institutional barriers to overcome. Some of these barriers may be overcome by incentives and legislative measures from G overnment. T he introduction of waste minimisation programmes is not limited by the availability of technology as most measures are simple. G overnment pro-vides help and assistance to those interested in implementing waste minimisation strategies (see below in U seful contacts). T hose
companies that choose not to operate a waste minimisation programme may find that they lose custom to competitors making savings through waste minimisation and having a better public perception as being environmen-tally friendly.
Useful cont act s
Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme (ETBPP). Tel: 0800 585794. Can provide free expert advice, counselling visits, guides, case studies and contacts for local project clubs.
Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme (EEBPP). Tel: 0541 542541. Can provide free publications, soft-ware and videos.
Business Links. Tel: 0345 567765. A national network of local business advice centres. Can provide informa-tion on a wide range of topics including the environ-ment.
References
Biffa Waste Services (1994), Waste: A Game of Snakes and Ladders?
Environment Agency (1998), Money for Nothing: Your Waste Tips for Free, NE-3/98-13K-B-BBEE. Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme,
(Undated a), Ingredient Weighing and Filling Control during Baked Bean Production, Industry Example 8, GG25.
Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme., (Undated b), Reduced Raw Material Use in Soup Production, Industry Example 5, GG25.
Envirosense (Undated), New Zealand Dairy Group, Anchor Products Ltd, http://es.epa.gov/techinfo/newz-cs5.html
Gee, D. (1984),Clean Production: From Industrial Dinosaur to Eco-efficiency, Manufacturing Science Finance, London.
HM SO (1994), Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy, ISBN 0-10-124262-X.
HM SO (1995), Making Waste Work: A Strategy for Sustain-able Waste Management in England and Wales, ISBN 0-10-130402-1.
Johnston, N. and Stokes, A. (1995), Waste Minimisation and Cleaner Technology: An Assessment of Motiva-tion, Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technolo-gy, London.
Leicestershire County Council (1995), Leicestershire Waste Minimisation Initiative Project Report, March. M arch Consulting Group (1997), “ Reducing costs and
improving environmental performance through waste minimisation” , The Aire & Calder Experience. Phillips, P., M urphy, A. and Read, A. (1997), “ Waste
minimisation in England: the role of county councils”, Proceedings of the Institute of Wastes Management , Vol. 15 pp. 9-13.
Price, P. (1995), Waste Minimisation. A Cross-Industry Review of Current Practices and Trends, Pearson Professional Ltd, ISBN 1-85334-407-9.
Read, A.D., Phillips, P.S. and M urphy, A. (1997), “ English county councils and their agenda for waste minimi-sation”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 20, pp. 277-94.
Rice, P. (1997), “ Further debate on landfill directive” , Wastes Management, November.
