roy et al 2009 a review of life cycle assessment (lca) on some food products

7/18/2019 ROY ET AL 2009 a Review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on Some Food Products

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roy-et-al-2009-a-review-of-life-cycle-assessment-lca-on-some-food-products 1/10

Review

A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products

Poritosh Roy *, Daisuke Nei, Takahiro Orikasa, Qingyi Xu, Hiroshi Okadome,Nobutaka Nakamura, Takeo Shiina *

National Food Research Institute, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Kannondai 2-1-12, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8642, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 2 November 2007Received in revised form 28 May 2008

Accepted 7 June 2008

Available online 22 June 2008

Keywords:

Produce

Food

Life cycle

Emissions

LCA

a b s t r a c t

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used to evaluate the environmental load of a product,

process, or activity throughout its life cycle. Today’s LCA users are a mixture of individuals with skillsin different disciplines who want to evaluate their products, processes, or activities in a life cycle context.

This study attempts to present some of the LCA studies on agricultural and industrial food products,

recent advances in LCA and their application on food products. The reviewed literatures indicate that

agricultural production is the hotspot in the life cycle of food products and LCA can assist to identify more

sustainable options. Due to the recent development of LCA methodologies and dissemination programs

by international and local bodies, use of LCA is rapidly increasing in agricultural and industrial food prod-

ucts. A network of information sharing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA development

process. The literatures also suggest that LCA coupled with other approaches provides much more reli-

able and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious policy makers, producers, and con-

sumers in selecting sustainable products and production processes. Although LCA methodologies have

been improved, further international standardization would broaden its practical applications, improve

the food security and reduce human health risk.

2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. LCA methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1. Goal definition and scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.3. Impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.4. Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. LCA studies on food products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.1. LCA of industrial food products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.2. LCA of dairy and meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.3. LCA of other agricultural products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.4. Land, water and other approaches in LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.5. LCA studies on packaging systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.6. LCA of food waste management systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64. Ongoing efforts on LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

0260-8774/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016

* Corresponding authors. Tel.: +81 29 838 8027; fax: +81 29 838 7996.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Roy), [email protected] (T. Shiina).

Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j f o o d e n g

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02608774

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02608774





1. Introduction

The food industry is one of the world’s largest industrial sectors

and hence is a large user of energy. Greenhouse gas emission,

which has increased remarkably due to tremendous energy use,

has resulted in global warming, perhaps the most serious problem

that humankind faces today. Food production, preservation and

distribution consume a considerable amount of energy, which con-tributes to total CO2 emission. Moreover, consumers in developed

countries demand safe food of high quality that has been produced

with minimal adverse impacts on the environment (Boer, 2002).

There is increased awareness that the environmentally conscious

consumer of the future will consider ecological and ethical criteria

in selecting food products (Andersson et al., 1994). It is thus essen-

tial to evaluate the environmental impact and the utilization of

resources in food production and distribution systems for sustain-

able consumption.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool for evaluating environmen-

tal effects of a product, process, or activity throughout its life cycle

or lifetime, which is known as a ‘from cradle to grave’ analysis.

Environmental awareness influences the way in which legislative

bodies such as governments will guide the future development of

agricultural and industrial food production systems. Although sev-

eral researchers have compiled LCA studies to emphasize the need

for LCA (Foster et al., 2006; Boer, 2002; Ekvall and Finnveden,

2001; Adisa, 1999; Andersson et al., 1994), some recent advances

in agricultural LCAs have yet to be reported. Therefore, this study

aims to present recent advances in LCA and provide a specific

review of LCA in several food products.

2. LCA methodology

Although the concept of LCAevolved in the 1960sand therehave

been several efforts to develop LCA methodology since the 1970s, it

has received much attention from individuals in environmental sci-

ence fields since the1990s. For this concept many names have been

used, for instance eco-balancing (Germany, Switzerland, Austria

and Japan), resource and environment profile analysis (USA), envi-

ronmental profiling and cradle-to-grave assessment. The Society of

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) has been

involved in increasing theawareness and understanding of thecon-

cept of LCA. In the 1990s, SETAC in North America, and the US Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sponsored workshops and

several projects to develop and promote a consensus on a frame-

work for conducting life cycle inventory analysis and impact assess-

ment. Similar efforts were undertaken by SETACEurope, other

international organizations (such as the International Organization

for Standardization, ISO), and LCA practitioners worldwide. As a re-

sult of these efforts, consensus has been achieved on an overall LCA

framework and a well-defined inventory methodology (ISO, 1997).

The method is rapidly developing into an importanttool for author-

ities, industries, and individuals in environmental sciences. Fig. 1

shows the stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006). The purpose of an LCA can

be (1) comparison of alternative products, processes or services;

(2) comparison of alternative life cycles for a certain product or ser-

vice; (3) identification of parts of the life cycle where the greatest

improvements can be made.

2.1. Goal definition and scoping

Goal definition and scoping is perhaps the most important com-

ponent of an LCA because the study is carried out according to the

statements made in this phase, which defines the purpose of the

study, the expected product of the study, system boundaries, func-

tional unit (FU) and assumptions. The system boundary of a system

is often illustrated by a general input and output flow diagram. All

operations that contribute to the life cycle of the product, process,

or activity fall within the system boundaries. The purpose of FU is

to provide a reference unit to which the inventory data are normal-

ized. The definition of FU depends on the environmental impact

category and aims of the investigation. The functional unit is often

based on the mass of the product under study. However, nutri-

tional and economic values of products (Cederberg and Mattsson,

2000) and land area are also being used.

2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis

This phase is the most work intensive and time consuming

compared to other phases in an LCA, mainly because of data collec-

tion. The data collection can be less time consuming if good dat-

abases are available and if customers and suppliers are willing to

help. Many LCA databases exist and can normally be bought to-

gether with LCA software. Data on transport, extraction of raw

materials, processing of materials, production of usually used

products such as plastic and cardboard, and disposal can normally

be found in an LCA database. Data from databases can be used for

processes that are not product specific, such as general data on theproduction of electricity, coal or packaging. For product-specific

data, site-specific data are required. The data should include all in-

puts and outputs from the processes. Inputs are energy (renewable

and non-renewable), water, raw materials, etc. Outputs are the

products and co-products, and emission (CO2, CH4, SO2, NO x and

CO) to air, water and soil (total suspended solids: TSS, biological

oxygen demand: BOD, chemical oxygen demand: COD and

chlorinated organic compounds: AOXs) and solid waste generation

(municipal solid waste: MSW and landfills).

2.3. Impact assessment

The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) aims to understand and

evaluate environmental impacts based on the inventory analysis,within the framework of the goal and scope of the study. In this

phase, the inventory results are assigned to different impact cate-

gories, based on the expected types of impacts on the environment.

Impact assessment in LCA generally consists of the following

elements: classification, characterization, normalization and valua-

tion. Classification is the process of assignment and initial aggrega-

tion of LCI data into common impact groups. Characterization is

the assessment of the magnitude of potential impacts of each

inventory flow into its corresponding environmental impact (e.g.,

modeling the potential impact of carbon dioxide and methane on

global warming). Characterization provides a way to directly com-

pare the LCI results within each category. Characterization factors

are commonly referred to as equivalency factors. Normalization

expresses potential impacts in ways that can be compared (e.g.,comparing the global warming impact of carbon dioxide and meth-

Goal andscope

definition

Inventoryanalysis

Impactassessment

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

Direct applications:

- Product developmentand improvement

- Strategic planning

- Public policy making

- Marketing

- Other

Life cycle assessment framework

Goal andscope

definition

analysis

Impactassessment

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n





- Marketing

- Other





- Marketing

- Other





- Marketing

- Other

Life cycle assessment framework

Fig. 1. Stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006).

2 P. Roy et al./ Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10



ane for the two options). Valuation is the assessment of the relative

importance of environmental burdens identified in the classifica-

tion, characterization, and normalization stages by assigning them

weighting which allows them to be compared or aggregated. Im-

pact categories include global effects (global warming, ozone

depletion, etc.); regional effects (acidification, eutrophication,

photo-oxidant formation, etc.); and local effects (nuisance, work-

ing conditions, effects of hazardous waste, effects of solid waste,etc.).

2.4. Interpretation

The purpose of an LCA is to draw conclusions that can support a

decision or can provide a readily understandable result of an LCA.

The inventory and impact assessment results are discussed to-

gether in the case of an LCIA, or the inventory only in the case of

LCI analysis, and significant environmental issues are identified

for conclusions and recommendations consistent with the goal

and scope of the study. This is a systematic technique to identify

and quantify, check and evaluate information from the results of

the LCI and LCIA, and communicate them effectively. This assess-

ment may include both quantitative and qualitative measures of

improvement, such as changes in product, process and activity

design; raw material use, industrial processing, consumer use

and waste management.

3. LCA studies on food products

The growing concern about sustainable food production and

consumption prompted different research activities on food pro-

duction and distribution systems including agricultural produce.

At the same time, international trade in food products also contin-

ues to increase. Predominantly, the LCA methodology has been

applied to industrial products and processes. Although most of

the life cycle studies carried out so far involve either agricultural

production or industrial refining, several LCA studies on agricul-

tural products have included agricultural production and industrial

processing, and qualities of finished food products, including bio-

ethanol and bio-diesel (Audsley et al., 1997; Sonesson and Davis,

2005; Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; Berlin, 2002; Berlin et al., 2007;

Kim and Dale, 2002, 2005; Janulis, 2004).

3.1. LCA of industrial food products

Bread is one of the important industrial food products, and has

been studied by several researchers (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999;

Holderbeke et al., 2003; Braschkat et al., 2003; Rosing and Nielsen,

2003). The studies include crop production methods (conventional

and organic) to milling technologies and bread production pro-cesses, packaging and cleaning agents. A scenario combining

organic production of wheat, industrial milling and a large bread

factory is reported to be the most advantageous way of producing

bread. There is a stronger distinction between industrial and

household production chains than between conventional and or-

ganic. However, an organic method requires more land area than

required for conventional wheat production. The results were ana-

lyzed based on the mass (kg) of bread. The primary production and

the transportation stages were reported to be highly significant for

most of the impact categories. The processing stage (baking) is sig-

nificant for photo-oxidant formation and energy use. Eutrophica-

tion impacts are associated with cultivation which is linked to a

leakage of nitrogen from fields and emissions of nitrogenous

compounds in the production of nitrogen fertilizer and the use of tractors.

In the case of beer production, the emission was reported to be

the highest during wort production followed by filtration and

packaging and lastly fermentation and storage (Takamoto et al.,

2004). Koroneos et al. (2005) reported that the bottle production,

followed by packaging and beer production, was the subsystem

that accounts for most of the emissions. The production and man-

ufacturing of the packaging elements as well as the harvesting and

transport of cereals are responsible for the largest portion (Hospidoet al., 2005). Takamoto et al. (2004) did not include the transport of

resource supplies, supply of beer containers, waste treatment,

shipping, and recovery from the market, and estimated only CO 2

emission. Koroneos et al. (2005) and Hospido et al. (2005) included

the transportation, and waste treatment and recycling of glass bot-

tles. This difference in system boundaries might lead to different

interpretation of the results.

LCA of tomato ketchup was carried out to identify the ‘hotspots’

in its life cycle and to find the way to improve the product’s envi-

ronmental performance (Andersson et al., 1998; Andersson and

Ohlsson, 1999). The functional unit is defined as 1 ton of tomato

ketchup consumed. Packaging and food processing were reported

to be hotspots (where the environmental impacts are the highest

in an LCA) for many impact categories. These studies revealed that

the current geographical location of the production systems of

ketchup is preferable; contributions to acidification can be reduced

significantly and the environmental profile of the product can be

improved for either the type of tomato paste currently used or a

less concentrated tomato paste.

3.2. LCA of dairy and meat production

The dairy industry has been studied extensively to determine its

environmental impact in many European countries. Milk is one of

the most important dairy products in European countries, and it

has been reported that organic milk production can reduce pesti-

cide use and mineral surplus in agriculture, but requires substan-

tially more arable land than conventional production (Williamset al., 2006; Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000). These studies revealed

that measures to reduce the potential impact from milk production

need to be implemented in both systems. The suggested improve-

ment in conventional production are the following: reduce

nutrient surplus in farms, less use of pesticide in imported concen-

trated feeds, and on-farm fodder production and increased use of

domestically or regionally produced feed ingredients. A greater

use of concentrated feed, a high self-supporting capacity of fodder

and cultivation of high yielding crops were recommended for or-

ganic production. The most adequate formulation of cattle feed

and implementation of treatment systems for water and air emis-

sions can reduce the environmental impacts. The agricultural

phase was reported to be the main hotspot in the life cycle of milk

and semi-hard cheeses (Hospido et al., 2003; Berlin, 2002). Packag-ing, waste management and cleaning processes also have potential

impacts (Eide, 2002; Casey and Holden, 2003). The main environ-

mental impacts associated with dairy processing are the high con-

sumption of water, the discharge of effluent with high organic

components and energy consumption. It is also reported that fre-

quent product changes increase the milk waste, and this can be re-

duced through product sequencing (scheduling of products) (Berlin

et al., 2007). Sonesson and Berlin (2003) reported that the amount

of packaging materials used is also an important factor. The use of

less amount of packaging materials leads to the greater energy sav-

ing since less packaging material is produced. Boer et al. (2003) re-

ported that the effectiveness of environmental indicators is

dependent on the method of analysis. The input–output account-

ing (IO) of nutrients yields effective indicators with respect toeutrophication and acidification. On the other hand, Ecological

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10 3



Footprint Analysis (EFP) and LCA yield similar indicators regarding

land and energy use.

The milk production system produces multiple products (milk,

meat, manure, etc.) and it is difficult to decide to what extent the

emissions are related to milk and co-products. A system expansion

(the boundaries of the system investigated are expanded to include

the alternative production of exported functions. For example,

inclusion of beef and meat in the LCA of milk is considered to bea system expansion, where the function of beef and manure is ex-

ported from the life of milk. Milk is considered the main product,

and beef and manure are the co-products) has been suggested to

avoid these difficulties (Dalgaard and Halberg, 2003; Cederberg

and Stadig, 2003). An industry-specific physico-chemical allocation

matrix has also been developed for dairy industry to overcome the

inherited bias of mass, process energy, or price allocations for a

multi-product manufacturing plant, and this gives a more realistic

indication of resource use or emissions per product (Feitz et al.,

2007). The dairy industry (milk) was evaluated to estimate whole

system (dairy farm + grazing and forage land) effects on the inten-

sification of nitrogen fertilizer or on forage crop integration. The

volume of milk (m3) is used as the functional unit. It is reported

that nitrogen fertilizer increased production and economic effi-

ciency but decreased environmental efficiency. The most signifi-

cant environmental impact of the agricultural subsystem is

eutrophication which is linked to the leakage of nitrogen and phos-

phorus from production and use of fertilizers. In contrast, increased

use of forage produced off-farm increased total land use efficiency

and production efficiency, with no loss in environmental efficiency

per liter of milk (Ledgard et al., 2003).

LCA studies on meat production have been reported by several

researchers. The environmental impacts of beef-fattening system

are reported to be dependent on the feeding length, feed produc-

tion and type of feed, animal housing and manure storage (Ogino

et al., 2002, 2004; Núñez et al., 2005; Hakansson et al., 2005;

Williams et al., 2006; Nemecek, 2006). A shorter feeding length

lowered the environmental impacts. The feeding stage is reported

to be the most important factor for environmental impacts and theinfrastructure is also relevant, especially for energy consumption

and human toxicity (Erzinger et al., 2003; Núñez et al., 2005).

The results are referred to the mass of the product. It was also re-

ported that organic farming reduces pesticide use but requires

more land and leads to higher global warming impacts than non-

organic systems in UK conditions (Williams et al., 2006). In

contrast, organic farming reduces the global warming potential

associated with the finished product in sheep farming (Williams

et al., 2006). Impacts were reported to be similar for conventional

and organic pig farming systems on a per-kg basis, with respect to

lower emissions of ammonia and nitrate from organic systems.

However, uncertainties in emission calculations were reported

for different practices, at some points within the system which

influenced the results (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2003,2005). Replacement of soya meal feed by pea and rapeseed-cakes

is favorable for pork production. Introduction of green legumes

in intensive crop rotations with high proportion of cereals and

nitrogen fertilizer is advantageous. LCA studies on meat production

seldom extend beyond the meat production stage (i.e., agricul-

tural). Studies which cover more of the life cycle indicate that agri-

cultural production is the main source of impacts in the life cycle of

meat products (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2008). Chicken pro-

duction is reported to be most environmentally efficient followed

by pork, with beef being the least efficient if protein is considered

as the functional unit. However, pork production appears to the

most environmentally efficient if functional unit is energy content

(Roy et al., 2008). For both the functional units beef is reported to

be the least efficient, might be because of the greater feed conver-sion ratio (mass of the feed consumed divided by the gain of body

mass) results in higher emission from feed production. These stud-

ies revealed that the enteric or gut CH4 emission from livestock and

N2O emission from feed (crops) production are major contributors

to global warming for dairy and meat products.

3.3. LCA of other agricultural products

Rice is one of the most important agricultural commodities inthe world. The life cycle of rice includes production and post-

harvest phases. Breiling et al. (1999) studied the production of

rough rice (paddy) in Japan to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions. The study reported that GHG emission is dependent

on location, size of farms and the variety of rice. Roy et al. (2005)

studied the life cycle of parboiled rice (post-harvest phases) pro-

duced at a small scale by local processes and reported that environ-

mental load from the life cycle of rice varies from process to

process; however, environmental load was greater for parboiled

rice compared to untreated rice (non-parboiled rice). Life cycle

inventory of meals (breakfast, lunch and supper consist of rice,

wheat, soybeans, crude and refined sugar, tomato, dried noodle,

vegetable oil, cooked rice, meat) was also reported. Emission from

cooking is reported to be 0.116, 0.773, 0.637, 0.423 and 0.295 kg/

meal for breakfast, lunch, Japanese-supper, Western-supper and

Chinese-supper, respectively. The study revealed that the life cycle

CO2 emission was higher for protein-rich products followed by car-

bohydrate-rich products (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006).

Sugar beet production was analyzed using the Eco-indicator 95

(Brentrup et al., 2001), and a developed LCA methodology was used

for winter wheat production (Brentrup et al., 2004a,b). It was

concluded that the economic and environmental aspects of high

yielding crop production systems are not necessarily in conflict,

whereas under- or over-supply of nitrogen fertilizers leads to

decreasing resource use efficiency. At low nitrogen rates the land

use was the key factor, whereas at a high nitrogen rates eutrophi-

cation was the major problem. Bennett et al. (2004) reported that

the genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant sugar beet pro-

duction would be less harmful to the environment and humanhealth than growing the conventional crop, largely due to lower

emission from herbicide manufacture, transport and field opera-

tions. Haas et al. (2001) studied three different farming intensities

(by varying farmgate N and P balances) – intensive (N: 80.1 and P:

5.3 kg/ha), extensified (N: 31.4 and P: 4.5 kg/ha), and organic (N:

31.1 and P: 2.3 kg/ha) – in the Allgäu region in Germany. The area

(ha) and mass of the product (ton) were the functional units. The

study revealed that extensified and organic farms could reduce

the negative effects in abiotic impact categories of energy use, glo-

bal warming potential, and ground water compared to intensive

farming by renouncing mineral nitrogen fertilizer. Acidification

and eutrophication were also reported to be higher for intensive

farming compared to those for extensified or organic farming.

LCA studies on potatoes have also been reported ( Mattsson andWallén, 2003; Williams et al., 2006) with regard to the production

methods and location of production. Mattsson and Wallén (2003)

suggested thatorganic cultivation is considerably less energy inten-

sive. In contrast, energy input is reported to be the same for organic

and conventional production (Williams et al., 2006). Mass of the

product was used as the functional unit in both studies. By shifting

from conventional to organic production, energy in fertilizer pro-

duction is replaced by energy for additional machines and machin-

ery operation, but it requires more land in organic systems.

Several researchers studied the life cycle of tomato and the

results were referred to different functional units: mass (kg or

ton: Antón et al., 2004a,b, 2005; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES,

2003; Shiina et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008) or area (ha: Muñoz et

al., 2004) or both (Hayashi, 2006). It has been reported that themethod of cultivation (greenhouse or open field, organic or




conventional, and hydroponic or soil-based), variety, location of

cultivation, and packaging and distribution systems affect the LCI

of tomatoes (Stanhill, 1980; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES, 2003;

Antón et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2006; Hayashi, 2005; Shiina

et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008). The studies vary widely on emissions

from cultivation perhaps because of differences in location, meth-

od of cultivation, and variety. It has also been reported that GHG

emissions from tomato cultivation in greenhouses are dependenton the type and construction of the greenhouse (or any similar

structure) (Antón et al., 2005). The LCI of tomato imported – which

includes storage and transport – by Sweden from Israel ( Carlsson-

Kanyama, 1998) was reported to be far less than that of local

production (the farmgate emissions) for greenhouses in the UK

(Williams et al., 2006). The life cycle of tomatoes has also been

studied to determine the environmental impacts of the cropping

system, pest control methods (CPM: chemical pest management

and IPM: integrated pest management) and waste management

scenarios (Antón et al., 2004a,b; Muñoz et al., 2004). Input re-

sources are less in the case of plastic covers compared to protected

cultivation (greenhouses). The CPM method has a higher level of

contamination in greenhouses compared to the IPM. The relative

impacts are reported to be highly dependent on the selection of

specific pesticides and crop stage development at the moment of

pesticide application. It was reported that both CPM and IPM

methods could be improved by careful selection of pesticides,

and composting of biodegradable matter is the best way to im-

prove environmental factors. It was also reported that a compari-

son of pesticides is feasible and pollution sources of highest

concern are identifiable. Margni et al. (2002) concluded that food

intake results in the highest toxic exposure (about 103–105 times

higher) than through drinking water or inhalation.

3.4. Land, water and other approaches in LCA

The UNEP–SETAC life cycle initiative expects to provide a

common basis for the future development of mutually consistent

impact assessment methods. This initiative includes methods forthe evaluation of environmental impacts associated with water

consumption and land use ( Jolliet et al., 2004). Ecosystem thermo-

dynamics and remote sensing techniques were considered as a

promising tool to assess land use impacts in a more direct way

and to measure ecosystem thermal characteristics. Once opera-

tional, it may offer a quick and cheap alternative to quantify land

use impacts in any terrestrial ecosystem of any size ( Wagendrop

et al., 2006). Lindeijer (2000) explored the biodiversity and life

support impacts of land use in LCA and revealed that additional

indicators might be necessary for wider acceptance by experts. Soil

erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure, soil pH, phosphorus,

potassium status of the soil, and biodiversity are good choices for

indicators (Mattsson et al., 2000). The ecoinvent 2000 project

group developed a simplified methodology to incorporate the landuse impact in LCA considering the recommendations of the SETAC

LCIA working group ( Jungbluth and Frischknecht, 2004). The

balance of the total surfaces transformed indicates whether the

surface of a certain type of land is decreased or increased.

Impacts on water resources are seldom included despite the fact

that food production and processing account for the majority of

water use globally (Foster et al., 2006). Ecological footprint analy-

ses compare human demand on nature with the biosphere’s ability

to regenerate resources and provide services by assessing the bio-

logically productive land and marine area required to produce the

resources a population consumes and to absorb corresponding

waste. This method is similar to LCA, where the consumption of

energy, food, building material, water and other resources is con-

verted into a normalized measure of land area known as ‘globalhectares’ (gha). It can be used to explore the sustainability of indi-

vidual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industrial sec-

tors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations (Global Footprint

Network, 2008). The ecological footprint on food consumption

which has been reported by several researchers (Collins et al.,

2005; Frey and Barrett, 2006) is dependent on the categories of

meals (dietary choices) and location (cities or regions or countries).

In 2001, the citizens of Cardiff had an ecological footprint of

5.59 gha/resident (Collins et al., 2005) and the world ecologicalfootprint was 2.2 gha/person, and the ecological footprint of the

diet of Scotland was reported to be 0.75 gha/person (Frey and

Barrett, 2006).

Jungbluth et al. (2000) used a simplified modular LCA approach

to evaluate impacts from the consumer’s point of view. Six differ-

ent subgroups (time-short anti-ecologist, human-supermarket

shopper, label-sensitive shopper, environmentally unconscious re-

gional-product fan, imperfect ecologist and ideal ecologist) were

considered to calculate their impacts for five single aspects of deci-

sion: type of agricultural practice, origin, packaging material, type

of preservation and consumption. Differences from the consumer’s

point of view arise mainly from differences among meat from or-

ganic production and from integrated production. Poultry and pork

show the lowest impacts while grazing animals show the highest.

Greenhouse production and vegetables transported by air cause

the highest surplus environmental impact. Avoiding air-trans-

ported food products leads to the highest decrease of environmen-

tal impacts. The study explored that consumers have the chance to

reduce the environmental impacts significantly due to their food

purchases. The environmental impact from purchases of a certain

amount of meat or vegetables may vary by a factor of 2.5 or 8,

respectively.

Life cycle costing is also being used as a decision support tool.

Pretty et al. (2005) explored the full costs of foods in the average

weekly UK food basket by calculating the costs arising at different

stages from the farm to consumer plates (for 12 major commodi-

ties). Changes in both farm production and food transport have

resulted in the imposition of new levels of environmental costs.

Actions to reduce the farm and food mile externalities, and shiftconsumer decisions on specific shopping preferences and transport

choices would have a substantial impact on environmental out-

comes. Krozer (2008) explored that the costs of pollution control

can in several cases be avoided through focused actions in the life

cycle, including changes in suppliers, adaptation of the manufac-

turing process and consumer behavior. These studies suggested

that the introduction of land, water and other approaches in agri-

cultural LCA would provide additional indicators in agricultural

LCA, lead to better interpretation of the results and enable more

reliable and comprehensive information to environmentally con-

scious decision makers, producers and consumers.

3.5. LCA studies on packaging systems

Packaging is a fundamental element of almost every food prod-

uct and a vital source of environmental burden and waste. Packag-

ing isolates food from factors affecting loss of quality such as

oxygen, moisture and microorganisms, and provides cushioning

performance during transportation and storage. The packaging of

food products presents considerable challenges to the food and

beverage industry, and minimizing the packaging and modifying

both primary and secondary food packaging present an optimizing

opportunity for these industries (Henningsson et al., 2004;

Ajinomoto Group, 2003; Hyde et al., 2001). The production stage

of the packaging system is reported be the principal cause for the

major impacts. Increasing recycling rates and reducing weight in

the primary package are environmentally more efficient (Ferrão

et al., 2003). Hospido et al. (2005) concluded that production andtransportation of packaging materials contribute to one-third of




the total global environmental impact of the life cycle of beer with

the use of glass bottles. Reusable glass bottle packaging systems

are reported to be the most environmentally favorable systems

compared to disposable glass bottles, aluminum cans and steel

cans for beer production (Ekvall et al., 1998). Modified atmosphere

packaging is reported to be beneficial compared to that of paper

box and cold chain distribution for imported tomato ( Roy et al.,

2008).The use of polylaminate bags instead of metallic cans in coffee

packaging could be a better option in the case of small packages,

even though this solution does not favor material recycling (Monte

et al., 2005). In the comparative study on the egg package, polysty-

rene packages contribute more to acidification potential, winter

and summer smog, while recycled paper packages contribute more

to heavy metal and carcinogenic substances (Zabaniotou and

Kassidi, 2003). Ross and Evans (2003) concluded that the recycling

and reuse strategies for plastic-based packaging materials can

yield significant environmental benefits. Mourad et al. (2008) ex-

plored the post-consumer recycling rate of aseptic packaging for

long-life milk and revealed that it is possible to increase the recy-

cling rate to 70% of post-consumer packages in the future, and a

48% reduction of GWP could be attained. Sonesson and Berlin

(2003) reported that the amount of packaging materials used is

an important factor in the milk supply chain in Sweden. (Williams

et al., 2008) reported that there are obvious potentials to increase

customer satisfaction and at the same time decrease the environ-

mental impact of food packaging systems, if the packaging design

helps to decrease food losses. Hyde et al. (2001) argued that a

reduction of 12% of raw materials can be achieved in the food

and beverage industry, and it makes a significant contribution to

company profitability by improving yields per unit output and by

reducing costs associated with waste disposal. The alternative

packaging scenarios are found to be useful to reduce environmen-

tal burdens of a packaging system. However, it would be much

better to use lesser amount of packaging materials without deteri-

orating the quality of food and consumers acceptance to reduce

environmental burden from food packaging.Post-harvest practices affect the quality of food. If inappropriate

measures are employed, the quality of food might deteriorate dur-

ing transportation and distribution and thus cause food loss. Qual-

ity deterioration and loss of food lead to more production to meet

the food demand and increase the LCI (more production and more

distribution). On the other hand a heavily equipped quality control

system results in an increase in LCI. Shiina (1998) has reported the

relationship between relative LCI and loss of food, and concluded

that there should be the optimum point of loss to minimize the

LCI for food supply chain (Fig. 2). The relative LCI = ( x1 + x2)/ x3

(where x1 is production LCI, x2 is post-harvest LCI and x3 is produc-

tion LCI without loss), if x2 = x3/loss in decimal. Hence, the packag-

ing or any other means of quality control activities on food should

be based on optimum point of loss of a certain food.

3.6. LCA of food waste management systems

Waste minimization in the food industry has lead to improve-

ments demonstrated in other sectors – energy efficiency, reduction

of raw material use, reduction in water consumption and increas-

ing reuse and recycling on site (Hyde et al., 2001). Generation of

liquid effluent with high organic content and the generation of

large quantities of sludge and solid wastes are reported to be a

common problem to all food industries (UNEP, 1995). Ramjeawon

(2000) argued to separate wastewater in the cane sugar industry

into two or three streams, most importantly separating the most

polluted wastewater from the large volume of relatively unpol-

luted barometric condenser water, thereby reducing the scale

and expense of treatment required.Hirai et al. (2000) evaluated four food waste treatment scenar-

ios (incineration, incineration after bio-gasification, bio-gasifica-

tion followed by composting and composting). The potential

contribution to climate change and human toxicity was reported

to be lower for scenarios with a bio-gasification process. Lundie

and Peters (2005) reported that home composting has the least

environmental impact in all categories if operated aerobically.

The environmental performance of the codisposal (landfilling of

food waste with municipal waste) option is relatively good com-

pared to centralized composting of green waste (food and garden

waste), except with respect to climate change and eutrophication

potential. Centralized composting has relatively poor environmen-

tal performance due to the energy-intense waste collection activi-

ties it requires. Tomatoes cultivated under protected conditionsproduce large amounts of solid waste with certain environmental

impact. Muñoz et al. (2004) reported that composting of biode-

gradable solid waste is the best way to improve environmental fac-

tors. Material recycling followed by incineration is reported to be a

much better option than direct waste incineration (Nyland et al.,

2003). In contrast, non-readily recyclable plastic pouches for deter-

gents outperform the more recyclable bottles in terms of energy

consumption, air and water emissions and solid waste, since they

use much less material in the first place (EUROPEN, 1999). Waste

management scenarios with energy recovery achieve better envi-

ronmental performance than scenarios without energy recovery

(Bovea and Powell, 2005). Reduction or elimination of wastes or

pollutants at the source was also recommended (McComas and

McKinley, 2008). These studies indicate that alternate waste

management scenarios are useful, but an integrated waste

management system would be much better to reduce overall envi-

ronmental burdens of food waste.

4. Ongoing efforts on LCA

The international LCA community is still struggling with issues

related to LCA databases, data collection and data quality goals. A

network of information sharing and exchanges of experience has

expedited the development process of LCA. Several North Ameri-

can and Western European countries have led these efforts. In

addition, researchers of different international organizations are

closely involved in the development processes of LCA including

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), theSociety for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), the

Loss (%)

R e l a t i v e L C I

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 8060

Fig. 2. Relationship between relative LCI and loss in food supply chain (Shiina,1998).




United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the European

Commission and the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri Busi-

ness, Denmark. Their mission is to develop and disseminate practi-

cal tools for evaluating the opportunities, risks, and trade-offs,

associated with products and services over their entire life cycle.

Recently, the former four standards (ISO 14040: 1997, ISO

14041: 1999, ISO 14042: 2000 and ISO 14043: 2000) have been re-

vised and replaced by two new standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044

to consolidate the procedures and methods of LCA (Finkbeiner et

al., 2006). Along with these organizations, many other organiza-

tions are also involved in the development of LCA. Although LCA

methodologies have improved, further international standardiza-

Fig. 3. Structure of the life cycle assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME2: Itsubo and Inaba, 2007).

Table 1

Major research organizations and their activities

Name of organization/institute Activities

International Standards Organisation (ISO) ISO has developed the Environmental Management Standards ISO 14000 series as a part of the development of the

international standard on LCA

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) UNEP’s priorities are environmental monitoring, assessment, information and research including early warning;

enhanced coordination of environmental conventions, development of environment policies and to establish the best

available practices for LCA through partnerships with other international organizations, governmental authorities,

business and industry, and non-governmental organizations

The Society for Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry (SETAC)

The SETAC supports the development of principles and practices for protection, enhancement and management of

sustainable environmental quality and ecosystem integrity

United States, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)

The EPA is working on the development of LCA methodology under different branches

Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production,

Australia

It has been established to promote the uptake of cleaner production and waste minimization activities in Western

Australia

Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society Inc., The purpose of this society is to promote and foster the development and application of LCA methodology in Australia

and internationally for ecological sustainable development

LCA Center, Denmark The center promotes product-orientated environmental strategies in private and public companies by assisting them inimplementing life cycle thinking

Society for the Promotion of LCA Development

(SPOLD), Belgium

SPOLD is involved in the development of LCA and for the necessary restructuring of company policies toward

sustainable development. It has developed the SPOLD format to facilitate LCI data exchange and for choosing relevant

data sets. They are currently focusing on developing the SPOLD format and maintaining the SPOLD Database Network

IVF, Swedish Institute for Production Engineering

Research

IVF has a large research program on LCAs and studies the possibility of including industrial hygiene into its LCAs

The Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES), UK CES is the leading center for sustainable development related research and post-graduate teaching

LCA Center, Tsukuba, Japan Activities of this center include development of LCA software, LIME (Japanese version of life cycle impact assessment

method based on endpoint modeling), LCA database and dissemination of LCA methodology. It is also working on the

development of eco-efficiency for sustainable consumption

Global Alliance of LCA Centers (GALAC) GALAC is a new international coalition formed by the following institutions to bring together National-level or higher

organizations to promote the use of life cycle approaches. The institutions are: American Center for Life Cycle

Assessment; Canadian Interuniversity Reference Center for Life Cycle Assessment, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe,

Germany; LCA Center, Denmark; Research Center for LCA, Japan

European Commission (European Platform on Life

Cycle Assessment)

Support life cycle thinking in the development of goods and services with reference data and recommended methods.

The platform addresses the needs of private businesses and public authorities

The Directorate for Food Fisheries and

Agri-Business, Denmark

Supports a project on life cycle assessment of basic food (2000–2003). It also supports LCA Food database

(www.lcafood.dk) and the data can be exported and used for free ( Nielsen et al., 2003)


http://www.ajinomoto.co.jp/company/kankyo/2003_e20.pdf




tion would enable direct comparison of different case studies. The

LCA Center in Tsukuba, Japan has developed a life cycle impact

assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME) to quan-

tify the environmental impacts as accurately as possible with a

high degree of transparency and to develop a single central index

(Eco- index). Fig. 3 shows the structure of LIME2. Studies on LIME

also concluded that a single index inevitably involves value judg-

ment (pricing) and has a higher degree of uncertainty (Itsuboand Inaba, 2003, 2007). Moreover, a voluntary study group (food

study group) has been formed in Japan to practice LCA on food

and to develop eco-efficiency for food products by comparing value

of certain products and services with their environmental

loads (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006; Ozawa et al., 2007). Eco-effi-

ciency = (Value that a consumer receives from having meals in a

day/LC-CO2 from meals served in a day). The major research orga-

nizations working on LCA and their activities are listed in Table 1.

5. Discussion

One of the important characteristics of agricultural LCA is the

use of multiple functional units. The commonly used functional

units are mass of final products (kg), energy or protein content in

food products (kJ), area (ha), unit of livestock. Gross profit and

meal are also used. Table 2 shows some LCA studies that used mul-

tiple functional units. Although the use of LCA in the agro-food

industries is rapidly increasing, there are considerable inconsisten-

cies existing among the studies. The conventional agriculture uses

greater amount of fertilizer and pesticides compared to the organic

agriculture, but organic agriculture requires more arable land.

Genetically modified (GM) agriculture reduces emission from her-

bicide manufacture, transport and field operation compared to the

conventional agriculture. Therefore, the multiple functional units

help in better interpreting and understanding the environmental

burden, productivity and farm income.

In recent years, bio-energy production (bio-ethanol and bio-

diesel) had been increasing rapidly. Market adjustments to this

increased demand extended beyond the supply of certain rawmaterials (corn, soybeans, oil seeds, etc.) to this sector, as well as

to livestock industries. This rapid expansion affects virtually every

aspect of the field crops sectors, ranging from domestic demand

and exports to price and the allocation of land area among crops.

As a consequence farm income, government payments and food

prices also change. Adjustments in the agricultural sector are al-

ready underway as interest grows in renewable sources of energy

to reduce environmental pollution and dependency on foreign oil,

which might lead to reduced food production and supply. The rush

towards bio-fuels is threatening world food production and the

lives of billions of people. It is very hard to imagine how the world

would grow enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the

same time meet the enormous demand for food.

The world population continues to grow geometrically, andgreat pressure is being placed on arable land, water, energy and

biological resources to provide an adequate supply of food while

maintaining the ecosystem. Pimentel et al. (1994) reported that

more than 99% of the world’s food supply comes from land, while

less than 1% is from water resources. Production of cereals,

fruits and vegetables, and meat was reported to be 2,085,774,

1,345,056 and 253,688 thousand tons in 2003. As consumption

surpasses production, the world’s stocks of stored grain fall relative

to each year’s use. It was also reported that 864 million peoplewere undernourished in 2002–2004 (FAOSTAT, 2006). In 2003,

the estimated per capita arable land was 0.22 ha. Economic and so-

cial changes resulting in aggravating poverty or leading to collapse

of basic infrastructure and systems, poor governance, inequalities,

as well as inappropriate land management and farming methods

can contribute to both short- and long-term food shortages. There-

fore, strategies for the future must be based on the conservation

and careful management of land, water, energy and biological re-

sources needed for food production. Transitory food insecurity

and health risk would be the big challenge humankind might have

to face in the near future. Since the LCA results are dependent on

the choice of functional units, hence the interpretation should be

based on the agricultural intensity, economic and social aspect,

and food security. Food delivers many health benefits beyond en-

ergy and nutrition. The purpose of food consumption is not only

for the feeling of the stomach, but also to supply the energy re-

quired by the body and other health beneficial food components.

For a healthy body one should consume a balanced diet that quan-

tifies the food items and their sources. Hence, for the future LCA

studies on food products, there might be a choice of functional unit

for studies on food products, that is the balance diet that would

help in stabilizing the production, distribution and consumption

of foods, hence improve food security and reduce health risk.

6. Conclusions

LCA methodologies are very useful to evaluate environmental

impacts and food safety of a product or production system. This

study revealed that environmental load of a product can be re-duced by alternate production, processing, packaging, distribution

and consumption patterns. Hence, it improves the food safety and

security and might improve international trade. Multiple outputs

in many food production systems often make the system complex,

and application of LCA on food products requires in-depth research

to understand the underlying processes and to predict or measure

the variation in emissions. Introduction of land, water, and other

approaches in agricultural LCA would provide much more reliable

and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious pol-

icy makers, producers, and consumers in selecting sustainable

products and production processes. A network of information shar-

ing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA develop-

ment process. Although LCA methodologies have been improved,

further international standardization, i.e., the development of asingle index, would enable direct comparison of different case

studies and broaden their practical applications.

Acknowledgement

The authors are indebted to the Japan Society for the Promotion

of Science (JSPS) for the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No.

18.06581).

References

Adisa, A., 1999. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, designand optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal 79, 1–21.

Ajinomoto Group, 2003. Environmental performance: containers and packagingactivities. <http://www.ajinomoto.co.jp/company/kankyo/2003_e20.pdf>.

Table 2

Application of multiple functional units

Authors Issues Functional units

Haas et al. (2001) Intensive, extensive and organic

grassland farming

1 ha and 1 ton milk

Hayashi (2006) A conventional and two fertilization

systems

1 ha and 1 kg

tomatoes

Nemecek et al.

(2001)

Intensive, extensive and low input

farming system

1 ha, 1 kg DM and

1 MJ

Roy et al. (2008) Differ ent types of meat 1 g protein and 1 kJ

energy

Basset-Mens and

van der Werf

(2005)

Pig production systems 1 kg pig and 1 ha







Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., 1999. Including environmental aspects in productiondevelopment: a case study of tomato ketchup. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft Und-Technologie 32, 134–141.

Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1994. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of foodproducts and production systems. Trends in Food Science and Technology 5,134–138.

Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1998. Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (3–4), 277–288.

Antón, A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Huijbregts, M., 2004a. Comparison of toxicological impacts of integrated and chemical pest management in

Mediterranean greenhouses. Chemosphere 54 (8), 1225–1235.Antón, M.A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., 2004b. Most significant substances

of LCA to Mediterranean greenhouse horticulture. In: Proceedings of the FourthInternational Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector,Bygholm, Denmark.

Antón, A., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., Castells, F., 2005. LCA and tomato production inMediterranean greenhouses. International Journal of Agricultural ResourcesGovernance and Ecology 4 (2), 102–112.

Audsley, E., Alber, S., Clift, R., Cowell, S., Crettaz, P., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J., Jolliet,O., Kleijn, R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B.P.,Zeijts, H., 1997. Harmonization of environmental life cycle assessment foragriculture. Final Report, Concerted Action AIR-CT94-2028, EuropeanCommission DG VI Agriculture.

Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2003. Environmental assessment of contrasting farming systems in France. In: Proceedings of the FourthInternational Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector,Bygholm.

Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-based environmentalassessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105, 127–144.

Bennett, R., Phipps, R., Strange, A., Grey, P., 2004. Environmental and human healthimpacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a lifecycle assessment. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2 (4), 272–278.

Berlin, J., 2002. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hardcheese. International Dairy Journal 12, 939–953.

Berlin, J., Sonesson, U., Tillman, A.M., 2007. A life cycle based method to minimizeenvironmental impact on dairy production through product sequencing. Journalof Cleaner Production 15, 347–356.

Boer, D.I.J.M., 2002. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organicmilk production. Livestock Production Science 80 (1–2), 69–77.

Boer, D.I.J.M., Iepema, G., Thomassen, M.A., 2003. Environmental impact assessmentat commercial dairy farms. In: Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalConference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,Denmark.

Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2005. Alternative scenarios to meet the demands of sustainable waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 79,115–132.

Braschkat, J., Patyk, A., Quirin, M., Reinhardt, G.A., 2003. Life cycle assessment of bread production – a comparison of eight different scenarios. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-FoodSector, Bygholm, Denmark.

Breiling, M., Tatsuo, H., Matsuhashi, R., 1999. Contribution of rice production to Japanese greenhouse gas emissions applying life cycle assessment as amethodology. University of Tokyo, Japan. <www.landscape.tuwien.ac.at/lva/ss04/261066/docs/v10/lcaricejap-en.pdf>.

Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., Lammel, J., 2001. Application of the life cycleassessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beetproduction with different forms of nitrogen fertilizers. European Journal of Agronomy 14 (3), 221–233.

Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., Lammel, J., 2004a. Environmental impactassessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessmentmethodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to cropproduction. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3), 247–264.

Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Barraclough, P., Kuhlmann, H., 2004b.Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems usingthe life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology: II. The application to N fertilizer

use in winter wheat production systems. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3),265–279.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 1998. Climate change and dietary choices – how canemissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy23 (3–4), 277–293.

Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2003. A systematic description and analysis of GHGemissions resulting from Ireland’s milk production using LCA methodology. In:Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment inthe Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.

Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B., 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production – acomparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production8 (1), 49–60.

Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycleassessment of milk and beef production. International Journal of Life CycleAssessment 8 (6), 350–356.

Collins, A., Flynn, A., Netherwood, A., 2005. Reducing Cardiff’s ecological footprint.Main Report. <http://www.walesfootprint.org>.

Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA of Danish milk system expansion in practice. In:

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment inthe Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.

Eide, M.H., 2002. Life cycle assessment of industrial milk production. <http://www2.lib.chalmers.se/cth/diss/doc/0102/HogaasEideMerete.html>.

Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2001. Allocation in ISO14041 – a critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (3), 197–208.

Ekvall, T., Person, L., Ryberg, A., Widheden, J., Frees, N., Nielsen, P.H., Wesnas, M.S.,1998. Life cycle assessment on packaging systems for beer and soft drinks(Environmental Project 399). The Danish Environmental Protection Agency,Ministry of Environment and Energy, Denmark.

Erzinger, S., Dux, D., Zimmermann, A., Badertscher, F.R., 2003. LCA of animalproducts from different housing system in Switzerland: relevance of feedstuffs,

infrastructure and energy use. In: Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalConference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,Denmark.

EUROPEN, 1999. Use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a policy tool in the field of sustainable packaging waste management. A Discussion Paper EUROPEN,Brussels, Belgium. <http://www.europen.be>.

FAOSTAT, 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAOStatistical Database. <http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture>.

Feitz, A.J., Lundie, S., Dennien, G., Morain, M., Jones, M., 2007. Generation of anindustry-specific physico-chemical allocation matrix application in the dairyindustry and implications for systems analysis. International Journal of LifeCycle Assessment 12 (2), 109–117.

Ferrão, P., Ribeiro, P., Nhambiu, J., 2003. A comparison between conventional LCAand hybrid EIO-LCA: a Portuguese food packaging case study. <http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA-LCM03/Ferrao.pdf>.

Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R.B.H., Christiansen, K., Klüppel, H.J., 2006. The newinternational standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (2), 80–85.

Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., Mylan, J., 2006.Environmental impacts of food production and consumption. A Final Report tothe Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Manchester BusinessSchool, Defra, London.

Frey, S., Barrett, J., 2006. The Environmental Burden of What We Eat: A Report forScotland’s Global Footprint Project, Stockholm Environment Institute.

Global Footprint Network, 2008. Advancing the science of sustainability. <http://www.footprintnetwork.org>.

Haas, G., Wetterich, F., Köpke, U., 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified andorganic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycleassessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83 (1–2), 43–53.

Hakansson, S., Gavrilita, P., Bengoa, X., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessment of pork vs. tofu. Life Cycle Assessment 1N1800, Stockholm.

Hayashi, K., 2005. Environmental indicators for agricultural management: theproblem of integration. Advances in Safety and Reliability: ESREL 2005. Taylor &Francis Group, London, UK. pp. 821–829.

Hayashi, K., 2006. Environmental indicators for agricultural management:integration and decision making. International Journal of Materials &Structural Reliability 4 (2), 115–127.

Henningsson, S., Hyde, K., Smith, A., Campbell, M., 2004. The value of resourceefficiency in the food industry: a waste minimization project in East Anglia, UK.

Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (5), 505–512.Hirai, Y., Murata, M., Sakai, S., Takatsuki, H., 2000. Life cycle assessment for

foodwaste recycling and management. In: Proceedings of the FourthInternational Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba, Japan. <http://homepage1.nifty.com/eco/pdf/ecobalanceE.pdf>.

Holderbeke, M.V., Sanjuán, N., Geerken, T., Vooght, D.D., 2003. The history of breadproduction: using LCA in the past. In: Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalConference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,Denmark.

Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2003. Simplified life cycle assessment of Galician milk production. International Diary Journal 13 (10), 783–796.

Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2005. Environmental analysis of beerproduction. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance andEcology 4 (2), 152–162.

Hyde, K., Smith, A., Smith, M., Henningsson, S., 2001. The challenge of wasteminimisation in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in EastAnglia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (1), 57–64.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 1997. ISO 14040Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles andFramework.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006. ISO 14040:2006(E)Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles andFramework.

Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2003. A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8 (5), 305.

Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of LIME2 – towards the establishment of methodology for decision making. In: SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting 2007,SETAC-EU-0249-2007.

Janulis, P., 2004. Reduction of energy consumption in biodiesel fuel life cycle.Renewable Energy 29 (6), 861–871.

Jolliet, O., Müller-Wenk, M., Bare, J., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Itsubo, N.,Peña, C., Pennington, D., Potting, J., Rebitzer, G., Stewart, M., Udo de Haes, H.,Weidema, B.P., 2004. The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAClife cycle initiative. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9 (6), 394–404.

Jungbluth, N., Frischknecht, R., 2004. Land occupation and transformation in theSwiss life cycle inventory data base ecoinvent 2000. In: Proceedings of the


http://www.landscape.tuwien.ac.at/lva/ss04/261066/docs/v10/lcaricejap-en.pdf


http://www.walesfootprint.org/

http://www2.lib.chalmers.se/cth/diss/doc/0102/HogaasEideMerete.html



http://www.europen.be/

http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture

http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA-LCM03/Ferrao.pdf


http://www.footprintnetwork.org/



http://homepage1.nifty.com/eco/pdf/ecobalanceE.pdf








http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture

http://www.europen.be/



http://www.walesfootprint.org/





Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-FoodSector, Bygholm.

Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., 2000. Food purchases: impacts from theconsumer’s point of view investigated with a modular LCA. International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5 (3), 134–142.Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2002. Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from

corn grain: I. System expansion. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7(4), 237–243.

Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2005. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilizedfor producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (6),

426–439.Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005.

Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. Journal of CleanerProduction 13 (4), 433–439.

Krozer, Y., 2008. Life cycle costing for innovations in product chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (3), 310–321.

Ledgard, S.F., Finlayson, J.D., Patterson, M.G., Carran, R.A., Wedderburn, M.E., 2003.Effects of Intensification of dairy farming in New Zealand on whole systemresource use efficiency and environmental emissions. In: Proceedings of theFourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-FoodSector, Bygholm, Denmark.

Lindeijer, E., 2000. Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. Journalof Cleaner Production 8 (4), 313–319.

Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of food waste managementoptions. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (3), 275–286.

Margni, M., Rossier, D., Crettaz, P., Jolliet, O., 2002. Life cycle assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystem andEnvironment 93 (1–3), 379–392.

Mattsson, B., Wallén, E., 2003. Environmental LCA of organic potatoes. In:Proceedings of the 26th International Horticultural Congress, ISHS, ActaHorticulturae 691.

Mattsson, B., Cederberg, C., Blix, L., 2000. Agricultural land use in life cycleassessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. Journal of CleanerProduction 8 (4), 283–292.

McComas, C., McKinley, D., 2008. Reduction of phosphorus and other pollutantsfrom industrial dischargers using pollution prevention. Journal of CleanerProduction 16 (6), 727–733.

Monte, M.D., Padoano, E., Pozzetto, D., 2005. Alternative coffee packaging: ananalysis from a life cycle point of view. Journal of Food Engineering 66 (4), 405–411.

Mourad, A.L., Gracia, E.E.C., Vilela, G.B., Zuben, F.V., 2008. Influence of recycling rateincrease of aseptic carton for long-life milk on GWP reduction. Resources,Conservation and Recycling 52 (4), 678–689.

Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Montero, J.I., Castells, F., 2004. Using LCA for the improvementof waste management in greenhouse tomato production. In: Proceedings of theFourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-FoodSector, Bygholm, Denmark.

Nemecek, T., 2006. Life cycle assessment of food production and consumption:examples from two European projects. Agroscope Reckenholz-TänikonResearch Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland.

Nemecek, T., Frick, C., Dubois, D., Gaillard, G., 2001. Comparing farming systems atcrop rotation level by LCA. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conferenceon LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden.

NIAES (National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences), 2003. Report on theResearch Project on Life Cycle Assessment for Environmentally SustainableAgriculture. NIAES, Ibaraki, Japan.

Nielsen, P.H., Nielsen, A.M., Weidema, B.P., Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA fooddatabase. <http://www.lcafood.dk>.

Núñez, Y., Fermoso, J., Garcia, N., Irusta, R., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessmentof beef, pork and ostrich meat: a critical point of view. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 140–151.

Nyland, C.A., Modahl, I.S., Raadal, H.L., Hanssen, O.J., 2003. Application of LCA as adecision-making tool for waste management systems. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1–6 (online first).

Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2002. Life cycle assessment of Japanese beef-fattening system: influence of feeding length on environmental loads. In:

Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba, Japan.

Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2004. Environmental impacts of the Japanese beef-fattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated by a life cycleassessment method. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2115–2122.

Ozawa, T., Inaba, A., 2006. Life cycle inventory analysis on meals: efforts of the foodstudy group, the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. In: Proceedings of theFifth AIST Workshop on LCA for Asia Pacific Region, Tsukuba, Japan.

Ozawa, T., Tahara, K., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of a sustainability indicator foragro-food consumption and production. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Inter-

national Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden.Pimentel, D., Harman, R., Pacenza, M., Pecarsky, J., Pimentel, M., 1994. Natural

resources and optimum population. Population and Environment 15,347–369.

Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., Morison, J.I.L., 2005. Farm costs and food miles: anassessment of the full cost of theUK weekly food basket.Food Policy 30 (1), 1–19.

Ramjeawon, T., 2000. Cleaner production in Mauritian cane-sugar factories. Journalof Cleaner Production 8 (6), 503–510.

Rosing, L., Nielsen, A.M., 2003. When a hole matters – the story of the hole in abread fro French hotdog. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conferenceon Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.

Ross, S., Evans, D., 2003. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (5),561–571.

Roy, P., Shimizu, N., Kimura, T., 2005. Life cycle inventory analysis of rice producedby local processes. Journal of the Japanese Society of Agricultural Machinery 67(1), 61–67.

Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2008a. Acomparative study on the life cycle of different types of meat. In: Proceedings of the Third LCA Society Research Symposium, Nagoya, Japan.

Roy, P., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Orikasa, T., Shiina, T., 2008b. Life cycleinventory analysis of fresh tomato distribution systems in Japan considering thequality aspect. Journal of Food Engineering 86 (2), 225–233.

Shiina, T., 1998. Optimization of food supply chain to minimize the environmentalload. In: Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of the Study Group on AgriculturalStructure, Tsukuba, Japan (in Japanese).

Shiina, T., Roy, P., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., 2004. Life cycle assessment of foodsupply chain:a case studyfor inclusion of quality changeaspect. In:Proceedingsof the 33rd United States and Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources(UJNR), Hawaii, USA.

Sonesson, U., Berlin, J., 2003. Environmental impact of future milk supply chains inSweden: a scenario study. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (3), 253–266.

Sonesson, U., Davis, J., 2005. Environmental systems analysis of meals – modeldescription and data used for two different meals. SIK-Rapport, Nr. 735 2005,The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Stanhill, G., 1980. The energy cost of protected cropping: a comparison of sixsystems of tomato production. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 25,

145–154.Takamoto, Y., Mitani, Y., Takashio, M., Itoi, K., Muroyama, K., 2004. Life cycle

inventory analysis of a beer production process. Master Brewers Association of Americas 41 (4), 363–365.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 1995. Food processing and theenvironment. Industry and Environment 18 (1), 3.

Wagendrop, T., Gulinck, H., Coppin, P., Muys, B., 2006. Land use impact evaluation inlife cycle assessment based on ecosystem thermodynamics. Energy 31 (1), 112–125.

Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the environmentalburdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticulturalcommodities. In: Main Report, Defra Research Project IS0205, CranfieldUniversity and Defra. <http://www.defra.go.uk>.

Williams, H., Wikström, F., Löfgren, M., 2008. A life cycle perspective onenvironmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (7), 853–859.

Zabaniotou, A., Kassidi, E., 2003. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packagingmade from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production 11(5), 549–559.


http://www.lcafood.dk/

http://www.defra.go.uk/



http://www.lcafood.dk/

roy et al 2009 a review of life cycle assessment (lca) on some food products

Documents