The usefulness of food packaging is often questioned in the public debate about (ecological) sustainability. While worldwide packaging-related CO₂ emissions are accountable for approximately 5% of emissions, specific packaging solutions can reach significantly higher values depending on use case and product group. Unlike other groups, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and life cycle assessment (LCA) of cereal and confectionary products have not been the focus of comprehensive reviews so far. Consequently, the present review first contextualizes packaging, sustainability and related LCA methods and then depicts how cereal and confectionary packaging has been presented in different LCA studies. The results reveal that only a few studies sufficiently include (primary, secondary and tertiary) packaging in LCAs and when they do, the focus is mainly on the direct (e.g., material used) rather than indirect environmental impacts (e.g., food losses and waste) of the like. In addition, it is shown that the packaging of cereals and confectionary contributes on average 9.18% to GHG emissions of the entire food packaging system. Finally, recommendations on how to improve packaging sustainability, how to better include packaging in LCAs and how to reflect this in management-related activities are displayed.

Despite the evidence-based health and environment benefits of sustainable diets and the urgent need to change consumption patterns in well-developed countries into plant-based diet, people are reluctant to limit meat consumption. The aim of the study was to examine the attachment to meat consumption in a group of Polish consumers and whether it depends on an understanding of the concept of sustainable food consumption (SFC). The study was carried out using the Computer Assisted Web Interview method on a sample of 199 consumers, who met two criteria of inclusion: age (20 - 65 years old) and not excluding meat from the diet. The questionnaire included a tool to measure the attachment to eating meat in 4 dimensions: hedonism, affinity, entitlement, and dependence. The analysis of the results was carried out in the Statistica software. Pearson Chi-squared test and Student’s t-test were performed to investigate the significance of differences between the two variables (p≤0.05). In the surveyed group only 35 % of respondents interpreted the term of sustainable food consumption correctly and among them there were more people with higher education. Interviewees were rather strongly attached to eating meat and this was firstly due to the belief in human right to eat meat, secondly – taste preferences and hedonism, thirdly ‒ dependence on eating meat. The ethical motives (affinity) were rated lowest, but significantly higher by respondents understanding the concept of sustainable diet. Their opinions on all aspects of attachment to eating meat were more pro-environmental than those of respondents who did not understand the idea (although the differences in the opinions were not statistically significant). Our results indicate the need to implement effective educational programs that will show all benefits of a sustainable diet to provide consumers with reliable knowledge and on this basis influence their attitudes and support them in making healthier and more sustainable choices in the food market.