Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used to evaluate the environmental load of a product,
Received 2 November 2007 process, or activity throughout its life cycle. Today’s LCA users are a mixture of individuals with skills
Received in revised form 28 May 2008 in different disciplines who want to evaluate their products, processes, or activities in a life cycle context.
Accepted 7 June 2008
This study attempts to present some of the LCA studies on agricultural and industrial food products,
Available online 22 June 2008
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
Keywords:
sustainable options. Due to the recent development of LCA methodologies and dissemination programs
Produce
Food
by international and local bodies, use of LCA is rapidly increasing in agricultural and industrial food prod-
Life cycle ucts. A network of information sharing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA development
Emissions process. The literatures also suggest that LCA coupled with other approaches provides much more reli-
LCA 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.
Ó 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Ongoing efforts on LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

* Corresponding authors. Tel.: +81 29 838 8027; fax: +81 29 838 7996.
E-mail addresses: poritosh@affrc.go.jp (P. Roy), shiina@affrc.go.jp (T. Shiina).

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016
2 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

1. Introduction The method is rapidly developing into an important tool for author-
ities, industries, and individuals in environmental sciences. Fig. 1
The food industry is one of the world’s largest industrial sectors shows the stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006). The purpose of an LCA can
and hence is a large user of energy. Greenhouse gas emission, be (1) comparison of alternative products, processes or services;
which has increased remarkably due to tremendous energy use, (2) comparison of alternative life cycles for a certain product or ser-
has resulted in global warming, perhaps the most serious problem vice; (3) identification of parts of the life cycle where the greatest
that humankind faces today. Food production, preservation and improvements can be made.
distribution consume a considerable amount of energy, which con-
tributes to total CO2 emission. Moreover, consumers in developed 2.1. Goal definition and scoping
countries demand safe food of high quality that has been produced
with minimal adverse impacts on the environment (Boer, 2002). Goal definition and scoping is perhaps the most important com-
There is increased awareness that the environmentally conscious ponent of an LCA because the study is carried out according to the
consumer of the future will consider ecological and ethical criteria statements made in this phase, which defines the purpose of the
in selecting food products (Andersson et al., 1994). It is thus essen- study, the expected product of the study, system boundaries, func-
tial to evaluate the environmental impact and the utilization of tional unit (FU) and assumptions. The system boundary of a system
resources in food production and distribution systems for sustain- is often illustrated by a general input and output flow diagram. All
able consumption. operations that contribute to the life cycle of the product, process,
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool for evaluating environmen- or activity fall within the system boundaries. The purpose of FU is
tal effects of a product, process, or activity throughout its life cycle to provide a reference unit to which the inventory data are normal-
or lifetime, which is known as a ‘from cradle to grave’ analysis. ized. The definition of FU depends on the environmental impact
Environmental awareness influences the way in which legislative category and aims of the investigation. The functional unit is often
bodies such as governments will guide the future development of based on the mass of the product under study. However, nutri-
agricultural and industrial food production systems. Although sev- tional and economic values of products (Cederberg and Mattsson,
eral researchers have compiled LCA studies to emphasize the need 2000) and land area are also being used.
for LCA (Foster et al., 2006; Boer, 2002; Ekvall and Finnveden,
2001; Adisa, 1999; Andersson et al., 1994), some recent advances 2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis
in agricultural LCAs have yet to be reported. Therefore, this study
aims to present recent advances in LCA and provide a specific This phase is the most work intensive and time consuming
review of LCA in several food products. compared to other phases in an LCA, mainly because of data collec-
tion. The data collection can be less time consuming if good dat-
2. LCA methodology abases are available and if customers and suppliers are willing to
help. Many LCA databases exist and can normally be bought to-
Although the concept of LCA evolved in the 1960s and there have gether with LCA software. Data on transport, extraction of raw
been several efforts to develop LCA methodology since the 1970s, it materials, processing of materials, production of usually used
has received much attention from individuals in environmental sci- products such as plastic and cardboard, and disposal can normally
ence fields since the 1990s. For this concept many names have been be found in an LCA database. Data from databases can be used for
used, for instance eco-balancing (Germany, Switzerland, Austria processes that are not product specific, such as general data on the
and Japan), resource and environment profile analysis (USA), envi- production of electricity, coal or packaging. For product-specific
ronmental profiling and cradle-to-grave assessment. The Society of data, site-specific data are required. The data should include all in-
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) has been puts and outputs from the processes. Inputs are energy (renewable
involved in increasing the awareness and understanding of the con- and non-renewable), water, raw materials, etc. Outputs are the
cept of LCA. In the 1990s, SETAC in North America, and the US Envi- products and co-products, and emission (CO2, CH4, SO2, NOx and
ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sponsored workshops and CO) to air, water and soil (total suspended solids: TSS, biological
several projects to develop and promote a consensus on a frame- oxygen demand: BOD, chemical oxygen demand: COD and
work for conducting life cycle inventory analysis and impact assess- chlorinated organic compounds: AOXs) and solid waste generation
ment. Similar efforts were undertaken by SETACEurope, other (municipal solid waste: MSW and landfills).
international organizations (such as the International Organization
for Standardization, ISO), and LCA practitioners worldwide. As a re- 2.3. Impact assessment
sult of these efforts, consensus has been achieved on an overall LCA
framework and a well-defined inventory methodology (ISO, 1997). 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
Life cycle assessment framework phase, the inventory results are assigned to different impact cate-
Goal and gories, based on the expected types of impacts on the environment.
scope Direct applications: Impact assessment in LCA generally consists of the following
definition - Product development elements: classification, characterization, normalization and valua-
Interpretation

and improvement tion. Classification is the process of assignment and initial aggrega-
- Strategic planning tion of LCI data into common impact groups. Characterization is
Inventory - Public policy making the assessment of the magnitude of potential impacts of each
analysis inventory flow into its corresponding environmental impact (e.g.,
- Marketing
modeling the potential impact of carbon dioxide and methane on
- Other
global warming). Characterization provides a way to directly com-
Impact pare the LCI results within each category. Characterization factors
assessment are commonly referred to as equivalency factors. Normalization
expresses potential impacts in ways that can be compared (e.g.,
Fig. 1. Stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006). comparing the global warming impact of carbon dioxide and meth-
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10 3

ane for the two options). Valuation is the assessment of the relative In the case of beer production, the emission was reported to be
importance of environmental burdens identified in the classifica- the highest during wort production followed by filtration and
tion, characterization, and normalization stages by assigning them packaging and lastly fermentation and storage (Takamoto et al.,
weighting which allows them to be compared or aggregated. Im- 2004). Koroneos et al. (2005) reported that the bottle production,
pact categories include global effects (global warming, ozone followed by packaging and beer production, was the subsystem
depletion, etc.); regional effects (acidification, eutrophication, that accounts for most of the emissions. The production and man-
photo-oxidant formation, etc.); and local effects (nuisance, work- ufacturing of the packaging elements as well as the harvesting and
ing conditions, effects of hazardous waste, effects of solid waste, transport of cereals are responsible for the largest portion (Hospido
etc.). et al., 2005). Takamoto et al. (2004) did not include the transport of
resource supplies, supply of beer containers, waste treatment,
2.4. Interpretation shipping, and recovery from the market, and estimated only CO2
emission. Koroneos et al. (2005) and Hospido et al. (2005) included
The purpose of an LCA is to draw conclusions that can support a the transportation, and waste treatment and recycling of glass bot-
decision or can provide a readily understandable result of an LCA. tles. This difference in system boundaries might lead to different
The inventory and impact assessment results are discussed to- interpretation of the results.
gether in the case of an LCIA, or the inventory only in the case of LCA of tomato ketchup was carried out to identify the ‘hotspots’
LCI analysis, and significant environmental issues are identified in its life cycle and to find the way to improve the product’s envi-
for conclusions and recommendations consistent with the goal ronmental performance (Andersson et al., 1998; Andersson and
and scope of the study. This is a systematic technique to identify Ohlsson, 1999). The functional unit is defined as 1 ton of tomato
and quantify, check and evaluate information from the results of ketchup consumed. Packaging and food processing were reported
the LCI and LCIA, and communicate them effectively. This assess- to be hotspots (where the environmental impacts are the highest
ment may include both quantitative and qualitative measures of in an LCA) for many impact categories. These studies revealed that
improvement, such as changes in product, process and activity the current geographical location of the production systems of
design; raw material use, industrial processing, consumer use ketchup is preferable; contributions to acidification can be reduced
and waste management. 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. LCA studies on food products

3.2. LCA of dairy and meat production

The growing concern about sustainable food production and
consumption prompted different research activities on food pro-
The dairy industry has been studied extensively to determine its
duction and distribution systems including agricultural produce.
environmental impact in many European countries. Milk is one of
At the same time, international trade in food products also contin-
the most important dairy products in European countries, and it
ues to increase. Predominantly, the LCA methodology has been
has been reported that organic milk production can reduce pesti-
applied to industrial products and processes. Although most of
cide use and mineral surplus in agriculture, but requires substan-
the life cycle studies carried out so far involve either agricultural
tially more arable land than conventional production (Williams
production or industrial refining, several LCA studies on agricul-
et al., 2006; Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000). These studies revealed
tural products have included agricultural production and industrial
that measures to reduce the potential impact from milk production
processing, and qualities of finished food products, including bio-
need to be implemented in both systems. The suggested improve-
ethanol and bio-diesel (Audsley et al., 1997; Sonesson and Davis,
ment in conventional production are the following: reduce
2005; Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; Berlin, 2002; Berlin et al., 2007;
nutrient surplus in farms, less use of pesticide in imported concen-
Kim and Dale, 2002, 2005; Janulis, 2004).
trated feeds, and on-farm fodder production and increased use of
domestically or regionally produced feed ingredients. A greater
3.1. LCA of industrial food products use of concentrated feed, a high self-supporting capacity of fodder
and cultivation of high yielding crops were recommended for or-
Bread is one of the important industrial food products, and has ganic production. The most adequate formulation of cattle feed
been studied by several researchers (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999; and implementation of treatment systems for water and air emis-
Holderbeke et al., 2003; Braschkat et al., 2003; Rosing and Nielsen, sions can reduce the environmental impacts. The agricultural
2003). The studies include crop production methods (conventional phase was reported to be the main hotspot in the life cycle of milk
and organic) to milling technologies and bread production pro- and semi-hard cheeses (Hospido et al., 2003; Berlin, 2002). Packag-
cesses, packaging and cleaning agents. A scenario combining ing, waste management and cleaning processes also have potential
organic production of wheat, industrial milling and a large bread impacts (Eide, 2002; Casey and Holden, 2003). The main environ-
factory is reported to be the most advantageous way of producing mental impacts associated with dairy processing are the high con-
bread. There is a stronger distinction between industrial and sumption of water, the discharge of effluent with high organic
household production chains than between conventional and or- components and energy consumption. It is also reported that fre-
ganic. However, an organic method requires more land area than quent product changes increase the milk waste, and this can be re-
required for conventional wheat production. The results were ana- duced through product sequencing (scheduling of products) (Berlin
lyzed based on the mass (kg) of bread. The primary production and et al., 2007). Sonesson and Berlin (2003) reported that the amount
the transportation stages were reported to be highly significant for of packaging materials used is also an important factor. The use of
most of the impact categories. The processing stage (baking) is sig- less amount of packaging materials leads to the greater energy sav-
nificant for photo-oxidant formation and energy use. Eutrophica- ing since less packaging material is produced. Boer et al. (2003) re-
tion impacts are associated with cultivation which is linked to a ported that the effectiveness of environmental indicators is
leakage of nitrogen from fields and emissions of nitrogenous dependent on the method of analysis. The input–output account-
compounds in the production of nitrogen fertilizer and the use of ing (IO) of nutrients yields effective indicators with respect to
tractors. eutrophication and acidification. On the other hand, Ecological
4 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

Footprint Analysis (EFP) and LCA yield similar indicators regarding mass) results in higher emission from feed production. These stud-
land and energy use. ies revealed that the enteric or gut CH4 emission from livestock and
The milk production system produces multiple products (milk, N2O emission from feed (crops) production are major contributors
meat, manure, etc.) and it is difficult to decide to what extent the to global warming for dairy and meat products.
emissions are related to milk and co-products. A system expansion
(the boundaries of the system investigated are expanded to include 3.3. LCA of other agricultural products
the alternative production of exported functions. For example,
inclusion of beef and meat in the LCA of milk is considered to be Rice is one of the most important agricultural commodities in
a system expansion, where the function of beef and manure is ex- the world. The life cycle of rice includes production and post-
ported from the life of milk. Milk is considered the main product, harvest phases. Breiling et al. (1999) studied the production of
and beef and manure are the co-products) has been suggested to rough rice (paddy) in Japan to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG)
avoid these difficulties (Dalgaard and Halberg, 2003; Cederberg emissions. The study reported that GHG emission is dependent
and Stadig, 2003). An industry-specific physico-chemical allocation on location, size of farms and the variety of rice. Roy et al. (2005)
matrix has also been developed for dairy industry to overcome the studied the life cycle of parboiled rice (post-harvest phases) pro-
inherited bias of mass, process energy, or price allocations for a duced at a small scale by local processes and reported that environ-
multi-product manufacturing plant, and this gives a more realistic mental load from the life cycle of rice varies from process to
indication of resource use or emissions per product (Feitz et al., process; however, environmental load was greater for parboiled
2007). The dairy industry (milk) was evaluated to estimate whole rice compared to untreated rice (non-parboiled rice). Life cycle
system (dairy farm + grazing and forage land) effects on the inten- inventory of meals (breakfast, lunch and supper consist of rice,
sification of nitrogen fertilizer or on forage crop integration. The wheat, soybeans, crude and refined sugar, tomato, dried noodle,
volume of milk (m3) is used as the functional unit. It is reported vegetable oil, cooked rice, meat) was also reported. Emission from
that nitrogen fertilizer increased production and economic effi- cooking is reported to be 0.116, 0.773, 0.637, 0.423 and 0.295 kg/
ciency but decreased environmental efficiency. The most signifi- meal for breakfast, lunch, Japanese-supper, Western-supper and
cant environmental impact of the agricultural subsystem is Chinese-supper, respectively. The study revealed that the life cycle
eutrophication which is linked to the leakage of nitrogen and phos- CO2 emission was higher for protein-rich products followed by car-
phorus from production and use of fertilizers. In contrast, increased bohydrate-rich products (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006).
use of forage produced off-farm increased total land use efficiency Sugar beet production was analyzed using the Eco-indicator 95
and production efficiency, with no loss in environmental efficiency (Brentrup et al., 2001), and a developed LCA methodology was used
per liter of milk (Ledgard et al., 2003). for winter wheat production (Brentrup et al., 2004a,b). It was
LCA studies on meat production have been reported by several concluded that the economic and environmental aspects of high
researchers. The environmental impacts of beef-fattening system yielding crop production systems are not necessarily in conflict,
are reported to be dependent on the feeding length, feed produc- whereas under- or over-supply of nitrogen fertilizers leads to
tion and type of feed, animal housing and manure storage (Ogino decreasing resource use efficiency. At low nitrogen rates the land
et al., 2002, 2004; Núñez et al., 2005; Hakansson et al., 2005; use was the key factor, whereas at a high nitrogen rates eutrophi-
Williams et al., 2006; Nemecek, 2006). A shorter feeding length cation was the major problem. Bennett et al. (2004) reported that
lowered the environmental impacts. The feeding stage is reported the genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant sugar beet pro-
to be the most important factor for environmental impacts and the duction would be less harmful to the environment and human
infrastructure is also relevant, especially for energy consumption health than growing the conventional crop, largely due to lower
and human toxicity (Erzinger et al., 2003; Núñez et al., 2005). emission from herbicide manufacture, transport and field opera-
The results are referred to the mass of the product. It was also re- tions. Haas et al. (2001) studied three different farming intensities
ported that organic farming reduces pesticide use but requires (by varying farmgate N and P balances) – intensive (N: 80.1 and P:
more land and leads to higher global warming impacts than non- 5.3 kg/ha), extensified (N: 31.4 and P: 4.5 kg/ha), and organic (N:
organic systems in UK conditions (Williams et al., 2006). In 31.1 and P: 2.3 kg/ha) – in the Allgäu region in Germany. The area
contrast, organic farming reduces the global warming potential (ha) and mass of the product (ton) were the functional units. The
associated with the finished product in sheep farming (Williams study revealed that extensified and organic farms could reduce
et al., 2006). Impacts were reported to be similar for conventional the negative effects in abiotic impact categories of energy use, glo-
and organic pig farming systems on a per-kg basis, with respect to bal warming potential, and ground water compared to intensive
lower emissions of ammonia and nitrate from organic systems. farming by renouncing mineral nitrogen fertilizer. Acidification
However, uncertainties in emission calculations were reported and eutrophication were also reported to be higher for intensive
for different practices, at some points within the system which farming compared to those for extensified or organic farming.
influenced the results (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2003, LCA studies on potatoes have also been reported (Mattsson and
2005). Replacement of soya meal feed by pea and rapeseed-cakes Wallén, 2003; Williams et al., 2006) with regard to the production
is favorable for pork production. Introduction of green legumes methods and location of production. Mattsson and Wallén (2003)
in intensive crop rotations with high proportion of cereals and suggested that organic cultivation is considerably less energy inten-
nitrogen fertilizer is advantageous. LCA studies on meat production sive. In contrast, energy input is reported to be the same for organic
seldom extend beyond the meat production stage (i.e., agricul- and conventional production (Williams et al., 2006). Mass of the
tural). Studies which cover more of the life cycle indicate that agri- product was used as the functional unit in both studies. By shifting
cultural production is the main source of impacts in the life cycle of from conventional to organic production, energy in fertilizer pro-
meat products (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2008). Chicken pro- duction is replaced by energy for additional machines and machin-
duction is reported to be most environmentally efficient followed ery operation, but it requires more land in organic systems.
by pork, with beef being the least efficient if protein is considered Several researchers studied the life cycle of tomato and the
as the functional unit. However, pork production appears to the results were referred to different functional units: mass (kg or
most environmentally efficient if functional unit is energy content ton: Antón et al., 2004a,b, 2005; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES,
(Roy et al., 2008). For both the functional units beef is reported to 2003; Shiina et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008) or area (ha: Muñoz et
be the least efficient, might be because of the greater feed conver- al., 2004) or both (Hayashi, 2006). It has been reported that the
sion ratio (mass of the feed consumed divided by the gain of body method of cultivation (greenhouse or open field, organic or
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10 5

conventional, and hydroponic or soil-based), variety, location of vidual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industrial sec-
cultivation, and packaging and distribution systems affect the LCI tors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations (Global Footprint
of tomatoes (Stanhill, 1980; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES, 2003; Network, 2008). The ecological footprint on food consumption
Antón et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2006; Hayashi, 2005; Shiina which has been reported by several researchers (Collins et al.,
et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008). The studies vary widely on emissions 2005; Frey and Barrett, 2006) is dependent on the categories of
from cultivation perhaps because of differences in location, meth- meals (dietary choices) and location (cities or regions or countries).
od of cultivation, and variety. It has also been reported that GHG In 2001, the citizens of Cardiff had an ecological footprint of
emissions from tomato cultivation in greenhouses are dependent 5.59 gha/resident (Collins et al., 2005) and the world ecological
on the type and construction of the greenhouse (or any similar footprint was 2.2 gha/person, and the ecological footprint of the
structure) (Antón et al., 2005). The LCI of tomato imported – which diet of Scotland was reported to be 0.75 gha/person (Frey and
includes storage and transport – by Sweden from Israel (Carlsson- Barrett, 2006).
Kanyama, 1998) was reported to be far less than that of local Jungbluth et al. (2000) used a simplified modular LCA approach
production (the farmgate emissions) for greenhouses in the UK to evaluate impacts from the consumer’s point of view. Six differ-
(Williams et al., 2006). The life cycle of tomatoes has also been ent subgroups (time-short anti-ecologist, human-supermarket
studied to determine the environmental impacts of the cropping shopper, label-sensitive shopper, environmentally unconscious re-
system, pest control methods (CPM: chemical pest management gional-product fan, imperfect ecologist and ideal ecologist) were
and IPM: integrated pest management) and waste management considered to calculate their impacts for five single aspects of deci-
scenarios (Antón et al., 2004a,b; Muñoz et al., 2004). Input re- sion: type of agricultural practice, origin, packaging material, type
sources are less in the case of plastic covers compared to protected of preservation and consumption. Differences from the consumer’s
cultivation (greenhouses). The CPM method has a higher level of point of view arise mainly from differences among meat from or-
contamination in greenhouses compared to the IPM. The relative ganic production and from integrated production. Poultry and pork
impacts are reported to be highly dependent on the selection of show the lowest impacts while grazing animals show the highest.
specific pesticides and crop stage development at the moment of Greenhouse production and vegetables transported by air cause
pesticide application. It was reported that both CPM and IPM the highest surplus environmental impact. Avoiding air-trans-
methods could be improved by careful selection of pesticides, ported food products leads to the highest decrease of environmen-
and composting of biodegradable matter is the best way to im- tal impacts. The study explored that consumers have the chance to
prove environmental factors. It was also reported that a compari- reduce the environmental impacts significantly due to their food
son of pesticides is feasible and pollution sources of highest purchases. The environmental impact from purchases of a certain
concern are identifiable. Margni et al. (2002) concluded that food amount of meat or vegetables may vary by a factor of 2.5 or 8,
intake results in the highest toxic exposure (about 103–105 times respectively.
higher) than through drinking water or inhalation. 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
3.4. Land, water and other approaches in LCA weekly UK food basket by calculating the costs arising at different
stages from the farm to consumer plates (for 12 major commodi-
The UNEP–SETAC life cycle initiative expects to provide a ties). Changes in both farm production and food transport have
common basis for the future development of mutually consistent resulted in the imposition of new levels of environmental costs.
impact assessment methods. This initiative includes methods for Actions to reduce the farm and food mile externalities, and shift
the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with water consumer decisions on specific shopping preferences and transport
consumption and land use (Jolliet et al., 2004). Ecosystem thermo- choices would have a substantial impact on environmental out-
dynamics and remote sensing techniques were considered as a comes. Krozer (2008) explored that the costs of pollution control
promising tool to assess land use impacts in a more direct way can in several cases be avoided through focused actions in the life
and to measure ecosystem thermal characteristics. Once opera- cycle, including changes in suppliers, adaptation of the manufac-
tional, it may offer a quick and cheap alternative to quantify land turing process and consumer behavior. These studies suggested
use impacts in any terrestrial ecosystem of any size (Wagendrop that the introduction of land, water and other approaches in agri-
et al., 2006). Lindeijer (2000) explored the biodiversity and life cultural LCA would provide additional indicators in agricultural
support impacts of land use in LCA and revealed that additional LCA, lead to better interpretation of the results and enable more
indicators might be necessary for wider acceptance by experts. Soil reliable and comprehensive information to environmentally con-
erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure, soil pH, phosphorus, scious decision makers, producers and consumers.
potassium status of the soil, and biodiversity are good choices for
indicators (Mattsson et al., 2000). The ecoinvent 2000 project 3.5. LCA studies on packaging systems
group developed a simplified methodology to incorporate the land
use impact in LCA considering the recommendations of the SETAC Packaging is a fundamental element of almost every food prod-
LCIA working group (Jungbluth and Frischknecht, 2004). The uct and a vital source of environmental burden and waste. Packag-
balance of the total surfaces transformed indicates whether the ing isolates food from factors affecting loss of quality such as
surface of a certain type of land is decreased or increased. oxygen, moisture and microorganisms, and provides cushioning
Impacts on water resources are seldom included despite the fact performance during transportation and storage. The packaging of
that food production and processing account for the majority of food products presents considerable challenges to the food and
water use globally (Foster et al., 2006). Ecological footprint analy- beverage industry, and minimizing the packaging and modifying
ses compare human demand on nature with the biosphere’s ability both primary and secondary food packaging present an optimizing
to regenerate resources and provide services by assessing the bio- opportunity for these industries (Henningsson et al., 2004;
logically productive land and marine area required to produce the Ajinomoto Group, 2003; Hyde et al., 2001). The production stage
resources a population consumes and to absorb corresponding of the packaging system is reported be the principal cause for the
waste. This method is similar to LCA, where the consumption of major impacts. Increasing recycling rates and reducing weight in
energy, food, building material, water and other resources is con- the primary package are environmentally more efficient (Ferrão
verted into a normalized measure of land area known as ‘global et al., 2003). Hospido et al. (2005) concluded that production and
hectares’ (gha). It can be used to explore the sustainability of indi- transportation of packaging materials contribute to one-third of
6 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

the total global environmental impact of the life cycle of beer with relationship between relative LCI and loss of food, and concluded
the use of glass bottles. Reusable glass bottle packaging systems that there should be the optimum point of loss to minimize the
are reported to be the most environmentally favorable systems LCI for food supply chain (Fig. 2). The relative LCI = (x1 + x2)/x3
compared to disposable glass bottles, aluminum cans and steel (where x1 is production LCI, x2 is post-harvest LCI and x3 is produc-
cans for beer production (Ekvall et al., 1998). Modified atmosphere tion LCI without loss), if x2 = x3/loss in decimal. Hence, the packag-
packaging is reported to be beneficial compared to that of paper ing or any other means of quality control activities on food should
box and cold chain distribution for imported tomato (Roy et al., be based on optimum point of loss of a certain food.
2008).
The use of polylaminate bags instead of metallic cans in coffee
3.6. LCA of food waste management systems
packaging could be a better option in the case of small packages,
even though this solution does not favor material recycling (Monte
Waste minimization in the food industry has lead to improve-
et al., 2005). In the comparative study on the egg package, polysty-
ments demonstrated in other sectors – energy efficiency, reduction
rene packages contribute more to acidification potential, winter
of raw material use, reduction in water consumption and increas-
and summer smog, while recycled paper packages contribute more
ing reuse and recycling on site (Hyde et al., 2001). Generation of
to heavy metal and carcinogenic substances (Zabaniotou and
liquid effluent with high organic content and the generation of
Kassidi, 2003). Ross and Evans (2003) concluded that the recycling
large quantities of sludge and solid wastes are reported to be a
and reuse strategies for plastic-based packaging materials can
common problem to all food industries (UNEP, 1995). Ramjeawon
yield significant environmental benefits. Mourad et al. (2008) ex-
(2000) argued to separate wastewater in the cane sugar industry
plored the post-consumer recycling rate of aseptic packaging for
into two or three streams, most importantly separating the most
long-life milk and revealed that it is possible to increase the recy-
polluted wastewater from the large volume of relatively unpol-
cling rate to 70% of post-consumer packages in the future, and a
luted barometric condenser water, thereby reducing the scale
48% reduction of GWP could be attained. Sonesson and Berlin
and expense of treatment required.
(2003) reported that the amount of packaging materials used is
Hirai et al. (2000) evaluated four food waste treatment scenar-
an important factor in the milk supply chain in Sweden. (Williams
ios (incineration, incineration after bio-gasification, bio-gasifica-
et al., 2008) reported that there are obvious potentials to increase
tion followed by composting and composting). The potential
customer satisfaction and at the same time decrease the environ-
contribution to climate change and human toxicity was reported
mental impact of food packaging systems, if the packaging design
to be lower for scenarios with a bio-gasification process. Lundie
helps to decrease food losses. Hyde et al. (2001) argued that a
and Peters (2005) reported that home composting has the least
reduction of 12% of raw materials can be achieved in the food
environmental impact in all categories if operated aerobically.
and beverage industry, and it makes a significant contribution to
The environmental performance of the codisposal (landfilling of
company profitability by improving yields per unit output and by
food waste with municipal waste) option is relatively good com-
reducing costs associated with waste disposal. The alternative
pared to centralized composting of green waste (food and garden
packaging scenarios are found to be useful to reduce environmen-
waste), except with respect to climate change and eutrophication
tal burdens of a packaging system. However, it would be much
potential. Centralized composting has relatively poor environmen-
better to use lesser amount of packaging materials without deteri-
tal performance due to the energy-intense waste collection activi-
orating the quality of food and consumers acceptance to reduce
ties it requires. Tomatoes cultivated under protected conditions
environmental burden from food packaging.
produce large amounts of solid waste with certain environmental
Post-harvest practices affect the quality of food. If inappropriate
impact. Muñoz et al. (2004) reported that composting of biode-
measures are employed, the quality of food might deteriorate dur-
gradable solid waste is the best way to improve environmental fac-
ing transportation and distribution and thus cause food loss. Qual-
tors. Material recycling followed by incineration is reported to be a
ity deterioration and loss of food lead to more production to meet
much better option than direct waste incineration (Nyland et al.,
the food demand and increase the LCI (more production and more
2003). In contrast, non-readily recyclable plastic pouches for deter-
distribution). On the other hand a heavily equipped quality control
gents outperform the more recyclable bottles in terms of energy
system results in an increase in LCI. Shiina (1998) has reported the
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-
2.5 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
2.0 McKinley, 2008). These studies indicate that alternate waste
management scenarios are useful, but an integrated waste
Relative LCI

management system would be much better to reduce overall envi-

1.5
ronmental burdens of food waste.

1.0 4. Ongoing efforts on LCA

The international LCA community is still struggling with issues

0.5 related to LCA databases, data collection and data quality goals. A
network of information sharing and exchanges of experience has
0.0 expedited the development process of LCA. Several North Ameri-
0 20 40 60 80 can and Western European countries have led these efforts. In
addition, researchers of different international organizations are
Loss (%)
closely involved in the development processes of LCA including
Fig. 2. Relationship between relative LCI and loss in food supply chain (Shiina, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the
1998). Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), the
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10 7

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the European 14041: 1999, ISO 14042: 2000 and ISO 14043: 2000) have been re-
Commission and the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri Busi- vised and replaced by two new standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
ness, Denmark. Their mission is to develop and disseminate practi- to consolidate the procedures and methods of LCA (Finkbeiner et
cal tools for evaluating the opportunities, risks, and trade-offs, al., 2006). Along with these organizations, many other organiza-
associated with products and services over their entire life cycle. tions are also involved in the development of LCA. Although LCA
Recently, the former four standards (ISO 14040: 1997, ISO 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 The SETAC supports the development of principles and practices for protection, enhancement and management of
Chemistry (SETAC) sustainable environmental quality and ecosystem integrity
United States, Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is working on the development of LCA methodology under different branches
(EPA)
Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production, It has been established to promote the uptake of cleaner production and waste minimization activities in Western
Australia 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 in
implementing life cycle thinking
Society for the Promotion of LCA Development SPOLD is involved in the development of LCA and for the necessary restructuring of company policies toward
(SPOLD), Belgium 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 IVF has a large research program on LCAs and studies the possibility of including industrial hygiene into its LCAs
Research
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 Support life cycle thinking in the development of goods and services with reference data and recommended methods.
Cycle Assessment) The platform addresses the needs of private businesses and public authorities
The Directorate for Food Fisheries and Supports a project on life cycle assessment of basic food (2000–2003). It also supports LCA Food database
Agri-Business, Denmark (www.lcafood.dk) and the data can be exported and used for free (Nielsen et al., 2003)
8 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

tion would enable direct comparison of different case studies. The biological resources to provide an adequate supply of food while
LCA Center in Tsukuba, Japan has developed a life cycle impact maintaining the ecosystem. Pimentel et al. (1994) reported that
assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME) to quan- more than 99% of the world’s food supply comes from land, while
tify the environmental impacts as accurately as possible with a less than 1% is from water resources. Production of cereals,
high degree of transparency and to develop a single central index fruits and vegetables, and meat was reported to be 2,085,774,
(Eco- index). Fig. 3 shows the structure of LIME2. Studies on LIME 1,345,056 and 253,688 thousand tons in 2003. As consumption
also concluded that a single index inevitably involves value judg- surpasses production, the world’s stocks of stored grain fall relative
ment (pricing) and has a higher degree of uncertainty (Itsubo to each year’s use. It was also reported that 864 million people
and Inaba, 2003, 2007). Moreover, a voluntary study group (food were undernourished in 2002–2004 (FAOSTAT, 2006). In 2003,
study group) has been formed in Japan to practice LCA on food the estimated per capita arable land was 0.22 ha. Economic and so-
and to develop eco-efficiency for food products by comparing value cial changes resulting in aggravating poverty or leading to collapse
of certain products and services with their environmental of basic infrastructure and systems, poor governance, inequalities,
loads (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006; Ozawa et al., 2007). Eco-effi- as well as inappropriate land management and farming methods
ciency = (Value that a consumer receives from having meals in a can contribute to both short- and long-term food shortages. There-
day/LC-CO2 from meals served in a day). The major research orga- fore, strategies for the future must be based on the conservation
nizations working on LCA and their activities are listed in Table 1. and careful management of land, water, energy and biological re-
sources needed for food production. Transitory food insecurity
5. Discussion and health risk would be the big challenge humankind might have
to face in the near future. Since the LCA results are dependent on
One of the important characteristics of agricultural LCA is the the choice of functional units, hence the interpretation should be
use of multiple functional units. The commonly used functional based on the agricultural intensity, economic and social aspect,
units are mass of final products (kg), energy or protein content in and food security. Food delivers many health benefits beyond en-
food products (kJ), area (ha), unit of livestock. Gross profit and ergy and nutrition. The purpose of food consumption is not only
meal are also used. Table 2 shows some LCA studies that used mul- for the feeling of the stomach, but also to supply the energy re-
tiple functional units. Although the use of LCA in the agro-food quired by the body and other health beneficial food components.
industries is rapidly increasing, there are considerable inconsisten- For a healthy body one should consume a balanced diet that quan-
cies existing among the studies. The conventional agriculture uses tifies the food items and their sources. Hence, for the future LCA
greater amount of fertilizer and pesticides compared to the organic studies on food products, there might be a choice of functional unit
agriculture, but organic agriculture requires more arable land. for studies on food products, that is the balance diet that would
Genetically modified (GM) agriculture reduces emission from her- help in stabilizing the production, distribution and consumption
bicide manufacture, transport and field operation compared to the of foods, hence improve food security and reduce health risk.
conventional agriculture. Therefore, the multiple functional units
help in better interpreting and understanding the environmental 6. Conclusions
burden, productivity and farm income.
In recent years, bio-energy production (bio-ethanol and bio- LCA methodologies are very useful to evaluate environmental
diesel) had been increasing rapidly. Market adjustments to this impacts and food safety of a product or production system. This
increased demand extended beyond the supply of certain raw study revealed that environmental load of a product can be re-
materials (corn, soybeans, oil seeds, etc.) to this sector, as well as duced by alternate production, processing, packaging, distribution
to livestock industries. This rapid expansion affects virtually every and consumption patterns. Hence, it improves the food safety and
aspect of the field crops sectors, ranging from domestic demand security and might improve international trade. Multiple outputs
and exports to price and the allocation of land area among crops. in many food production systems often make the system complex,
As a consequence farm income, government payments and food and application of LCA on food products requires in-depth research
prices also change. Adjustments in the agricultural sector are al- to understand the underlying processes and to predict or measure
ready underway as interest grows in renewable sources of energy the variation in emissions. Introduction of land, water, and other
to reduce environmental pollution and dependency on foreign oil, approaches in agricultural LCA would provide much more reliable
which might lead to reduced food production and supply. The rush and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious pol-
towards bio-fuels is threatening world food production and the icy makers, producers, and consumers in selecting sustainable
lives of billions of people. It is very hard to imagine how the world products and production processes. A network of information shar-
would grow enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the ing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA develop-
same time meet the enormous demand for food. ment process. Although LCA methodologies have been improved,
The world population continues to grow geometrically, and further international standardization, i.e., the development of a
great pressure is being placed on arable land, water, energy and single index, would enable direct comparison of different case
studies and broaden their practical applications.
Table 2
Application of multiple functional units

Authors Issues Functional units

Acknowledgement

Haas et al. (2001) Intensive, extensive and organic 1 ha and 1 ton milk
grassland farming
The authors are indebted to the Japan Society for the Promotion
Hayashi (2006) A conventional and two fertilization 1 ha and 1 kg of Science (JSPS) for the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No.
systems tomatoes 18.06581).
Nemecek et al. Intensive, extensive and low input 1 ha, 1 kg DM and
(2001) farming system 1 MJ
Roy et al. (2008) Different types of meat 1 g protein and 1 kJ References
energy
Basset-Mens and Pig production systems 1 kg pig and 1 ha Adisa, A., 1999. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design
van der Werf and optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal 79, 1–21.
(2005) Ajinomoto Group, 2003. Environmental performance: containers and packaging
activities. <http://www.ajinomoto.co.jp/company/kankyo/2003_e20.pdf>.
 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10 9

Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., 1999. Including environmental aspects in production Eide, M.H., 2002. Life cycle assessment of industrial milk production. <http://
development: a case study of tomato ketchup. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft Und- www2.lib.chalmers.se/cth/diss/doc/0102/HogaasEideMerete.html>.
Technologie 32, 134–141. Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2001. Allocation in ISO14041 – a critical review. Journal of
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1994. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food Cleaner Production 9 (3), 197–208.
products and production systems. Trends in Food Science and Technology 5, Ekvall, T., Person, L., Ryberg, A., Widheden, J., Frees, N., Nielsen, P.H., Wesnas, M.S.,
134–138. 1998. Life cycle assessment on packaging systems for beer and soft drinks
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1998. Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of (Environmental Project 399). The Danish Environmental Protection Agency,
tomato ketchup: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (3–4), 277–288. Ministry of Environment and Energy, Denmark.
Antón, A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Huijbregts, M., 2004a. Comparison of Erzinger, S., Dux, D., Zimmermann, A., Badertscher, F.R., 2003. LCA of animal
toxicological impacts of integrated and chemical pest management in products from different housing system in Switzerland: relevance of feedstuffs,
Mediterranean greenhouses. Chemosphere 54 (8), 1225–1235. infrastructure and energy use. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Antón, M.A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., 2004b. Most significant substances Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,
of LCA to Mediterranean greenhouse horticulture. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Denmark.
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, EUROPEN, 1999. Use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a policy tool in the field of
Bygholm, Denmark. sustainable packaging waste management. A Discussion Paper EUROPEN,
Antón, A., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., Castells, F., 2005. LCA and tomato production in Brussels, Belgium. <http://www.europen.be>.
Mediterranean greenhouses. International Journal of Agricultural Resources FAOSTAT, 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO
Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 102–112. Statistical Database. <http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture>.
Audsley, E., Alber, S., Clift, R., Cowell, S., Crettaz, P., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J., Jolliet, Feitz, A.J., Lundie, S., Dennien, G., Morain, M., Jones, M., 2007. Generation of an
O., Kleijn, R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B.P., industry-specific physico-chemical allocation matrix application in the dairy
Zeijts, H., 1997. Harmonization of environmental life cycle assessment for industry and implications for systems analysis. International Journal of Life
agriculture. Final Report, Concerted Action AIR-CT94-2028, European Cycle Assessment 12 (2), 109–117.
Commission DG VI Agriculture. Ferrão, P., Ribeiro, P., Nhambiu, J., 2003. A comparison between conventional LCA
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2003. Environmental assessment of and hybrid EIO-LCA: a Portuguese food packaging case study. <http://
contrasting farming systems in France. In: Proceedings of the Fourth www.lcacenter.org/InLCA-LCM03/Ferrao.pdf>.
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R.B.H., Christiansen, K., Klüppel, H.J., 2006. The new
Bygholm. international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-based environmental International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (2), 80–85.
assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., Mylan, J., 2006.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105, 127–144. Environmental impacts of food production and consumption. A Final Report to
Bennett, R., Phipps, R., Strange, A., Grey, P., 2004. Environmental and human health the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Manchester Business
impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life School, Defra, London.
cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2 (4), 272–278. Frey, S., Barrett, J., 2006. The Environmental Burden of What We Eat: A Report for
Berlin, J., 2002. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard Scotland’s Global Footprint Project, Stockholm Environment Institute.
cheese. International Dairy Journal 12, 939–953. Global Footprint Network, 2008. Advancing the science of sustainability. <http://
Berlin, J., Sonesson, U., Tillman, A.M., 2007. A life cycle based method to minimize www.footprintnetwork.org>.
environmental impact on dairy production through product sequencing. Journal Haas, G., Wetterich, F., Köpke, U., 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and
of Cleaner Production 15, 347–356. organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle
Boer, D.I.J.M., 2002. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83 (1–2), 43–53.
milk production. Livestock Production Science 80 (1–2), 69–77. Hakansson, S., Gavrilita, P., Bengoa, X., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessment of
Boer, D.I.J.M., Iepema, G., Thomassen, M.A., 2003. Environmental impact assessment pork vs. tofu. Life Cycle Assessment 1N1800, Stockholm.
at commercial dairy farms. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Hayashi, K., 2005. Environmental indicators for agricultural management: the
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, problem of integration. Advances in Safety and Reliability: ESREL 2005. Taylor &
Denmark. Francis Group, London, UK. pp. 821–829.
Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2005. Alternative scenarios to meet the demands of Hayashi, K., 2006. Environmental indicators for agricultural management:
sustainable waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 79, integration and decision making. International Journal of Materials &
115–132. Structural Reliability 4 (2), 115–127.
Braschkat, J., Patyk, A., Quirin, M., Reinhardt, G.A., 2003. Life cycle assessment of Henningsson, S., Hyde, K., Smith, A., Campbell, M., 2004. The value of resource
bread production – a comparison of eight different scenarios. In: Proceedings of efficiency in the food industry: a waste minimization project in East Anglia, UK.
the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (5), 505–512.
Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Hirai, Y., Murata, M., Sakai, S., Takatsuki, H., 2000. Life cycle assessment for
Breiling, M., Tatsuo, H., Matsuhashi, R., 1999. Contribution of rice production to foodwaste recycling and management. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
Japanese greenhouse gas emissions applying life cycle assessment as a International Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba, Japan. <http://homepage1.
methodology. University of Tokyo, Japan. <www.landscape.tuwien.ac.at/lva/ nifty.com/eco/pdf/ecobalanceE.pdf>.
ss04/261066/docs/v10/lcaricejap-en.pdf>. Holderbeke, M.V., Sanjuán, N., Geerken, T., Vooght, D.D., 2003. The history of bread
Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., Lammel, J., 2001. Application of the life cycle production: using LCA in the past. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
assessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beet Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm,
production with different forms of nitrogen fertilizers. European Journal of Denmark.
Agronomy 14 (3), 221–233. Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2003. Simplified life cycle assessment of
Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., Lammel, J., 2004a. Environmental impact Galician milk production. International Diary Journal 13 (10), 783–796.
assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2005. Environmental analysis of beer
methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and
production. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3), 247–264. Ecology 4 (2), 152–162.
Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Barraclough, P., Kuhlmann, H., 2004b. Hyde, K., Smith, A., Smith, M., Henningsson, S., 2001. The challenge of waste
Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using minimisation in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in East
the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology: II. The application to N fertilizer Anglia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (1), 57–64.
use in winter wheat production systems. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3), ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 1997. ISO 14040
265–279. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 1998. Climate change and dietary choices – how can Framework.
emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006. ISO 14040:2006(E)
23 (3–4), 277–293. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2003. A systematic description and analysis of GHG Framework.
emissions resulting from Ireland’s milk production using LCA methodology. In: Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2003. A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8 (5), 305.
the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of LIME2 – towards the establishment of
Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B., 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production – a methodology for decision making. In: SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting 2007,
comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production SETAC-EU-0249-2007.
8 (1), 49–60. Janulis, P., 2004. Reduction of energy consumption in biodiesel fuel life cycle.
Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle Renewable Energy 29 (6), 861–871.
assessment of milk and beef production. International Journal of Life Cycle Jolliet, O., Müller-Wenk, M., Bare, J., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Itsubo, N.,
Assessment 8 (6), 350–356. Peña, C., Pennington, D., Potting, J., Rebitzer, G., Stewart, M., Udo de Haes, H.,
Collins, A., Flynn, A., Netherwood, A., 2005. Reducing Cardiff’s ecological footprint. Weidema, B.P., 2004. The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC
Main Report. <http://www.walesfootprint.org>. life cycle initiative. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9 (6), 394–
Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA of Danish milk system expansion in practice. In: 404.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Jungbluth, N., Frischknecht, R., 2004. Land occupation and transformation in the
the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Swiss life cycle inventory data base ecoinvent 2000. In: Proceedings of the
10 P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 1–10

Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba,
Sector, Bygholm. Japan.
Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., 2000. Food purchases: impacts from the Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2004. Environmental impacts of the Japanese beef-
consumer’s point of view investigated with a modular LCA. International fattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated by a life cycle
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5 (3), 134–142. assessment method. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2115–2122.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2002. Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from Ozawa, T., Inaba, A., 2006. Life cycle inventory analysis on meals: efforts of the food
corn grain: I. System expansion. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7 study group, the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. In: Proceedings of the
(4), 237–243. Fifth AIST Workshop on LCA for Asia Pacific Region, Tsukuba, Japan.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2005. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized Ozawa, T., Tahara, K., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of a sustainability indicator for
for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (6), agro-food consumption and production. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Inter-
426–439. national Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005. Pimentel, D., Harman, R., Pacenza, M., Pecarsky, J., Pimentel, M., 1994. Natural
Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. Journal of Cleaner resources and optimum population. Population and Environment 15,
Production 13 (4), 433–439. 347–369.
Krozer, Y., 2008. Life cycle costing for innovations in product chains. Journal of Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., Morison, J.I.L., 2005. Farm costs and food miles: an
Cleaner Production 16 (3), 310–321. assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30 (1), 1–19.
Ledgard, S.F., Finlayson, J.D., Patterson, M.G., Carran, R.A., Wedderburn, M.E., 2003. Ramjeawon, T., 2000. Cleaner production in Mauritian cane-sugar factories. Journal
Effects of Intensification of dairy farming in New Zealand on whole system of Cleaner Production 8 (6), 503–510.
resource use efficiency and environmental emissions. In: Proceedings of the Rosing, L., Nielsen, A.M., 2003. When a hole matters – the story of the hole in a
Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food bread fro French hotdog. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.
Lindeijer, E., 2000. Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. Journal Ross, S., Evans, D., 2003. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-
of Cleaner Production 8 (4), 313–319. based packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (5),
Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of food waste management 561–571.
options. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (3), 275–286. Roy, P., Shimizu, N., Kimura, T., 2005. Life cycle inventory analysis of rice produced
Margni, M., Rossier, D., Crettaz, P., Jolliet, O., 2002. Life cycle assessment of by local processes. Journal of the Japanese Society of Agricultural Machinery 67
pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and (1), 61–67.
Environment 93 (1–3), 379–392. Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2008a. A
Mattsson, B., Wallén, E., 2003. Environmental LCA of organic potatoes. In: comparative study on the life cycle of different types of meat. In: Proceedings of
Proceedings of the 26th International Horticultural Congress, ISHS, Acta the Third LCA Society Research Symposium, Nagoya, Japan.
Horticulturae 691. Roy, P., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Orikasa, T., Shiina, T., 2008b. Life cycle
Mattsson, B., Cederberg, C., Blix, L., 2000. Agricultural land use in life cycle inventory analysis of fresh tomato distribution systems in Japan considering the
assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. Journal of Cleaner quality aspect. Journal of Food Engineering 86 (2), 225–233.
Production 8 (4), 283–292. Shiina, T., 1998. Optimization of food supply chain to minimize the environmental
McComas, C., McKinley, D., 2008. Reduction of phosphorus and other pollutants load. In: Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of the Study Group on Agricultural
from industrial dischargers using pollution prevention. Journal of Cleaner Structure, Tsukuba, Japan (in Japanese).
Production 16 (6), 727–733. Shiina, T., Roy, P., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., 2004. Life cycle assessment of food
Monte, M.D., Padoano, E., Pozzetto, D., 2005. Alternative coffee packaging: an supply chain: a case study for inclusion of quality change aspect. In: Proceedings
analysis from a life cycle point of view. Journal of Food Engineering 66 (4), 405– of the 33rd United States and Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources
411. (UJNR), Hawaii, USA.
Mourad, A.L., Gracia, E.E.C., Vilela, G.B., Zuben, F.V., 2008. Influence of recycling rate Sonesson, U., Berlin, J., 2003. Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in
increase of aseptic carton for long-life milk on GWP reduction. Resources, Sweden: a scenario study. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (3), 253–266.
Conservation and Recycling 52 (4), 678–689. Sonesson, U., Davis, J., 2005. Environmental systems analysis of meals – model
Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Montero, J.I., Castells, F., 2004. Using LCA for the improvement description and data used for two different meals. SIK-Rapport, Nr. 735 2005,
of waste management in greenhouse tomato production. In: Proceedings of the The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Stanhill, G., 1980. The energy cost of protected cropping: a comparison of six
Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. systems of tomato production. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 25,
Nemecek, T., 2006. Life cycle assessment of food production and consumption: 145–154.
examples from two European projects. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Takamoto, Y., Mitani, Y., Takashio, M., Itoi, K., Muroyama, K., 2004. Life cycle
Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland. inventory analysis of a beer production process. Master Brewers Association of
Nemecek, T., Frick, C., Dubois, D., Gaillard, G., 2001. Comparing farming systems at Americas 41 (4), 363–365.
crop rotation level by LCA. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 1995. Food processing and the
on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden. environment. Industry and Environment 18 (1), 3.
NIAES (National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences), 2003. Report on the Wagendrop, T., Gulinck, H., Coppin, P., Muys, B., 2006. Land use impact evaluation in
Research Project on Life Cycle Assessment for Environmentally Sustainable life cycle assessment based on ecosystem thermodynamics. Energy 31 (1), 112–
Agriculture. NIAES, Ibaraki, Japan. 125.
Nielsen, P.H., Nielsen, A.M., Weidema, B.P., Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA food Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the environmental
database. <http://www.lcafood.dk>. burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural
Núñez, Y., Fermoso, J., Garcia, N., Irusta, R., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessment commodities. In: Main Report, Defra Research Project IS0205, Cranfield
of beef, pork and ostrich meat: a critical point of view. International Journal of University and Defra. <http://www.defra.go.uk>.
Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 140–151. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Löfgren, M., 2008. A life cycle perspective on
Nyland, C.A., Modahl, I.S., Raadal, H.L., Hanssen, O.J., 2003. Application of LCA as a environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of
decision-making tool for waste management systems. International Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (7), 853–859.
Life Cycle Assessment 1–6 (online first). Zabaniotou, A., Kassidi, E., 2003. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging
Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2002. Life cycle assessment of Japanese beef- made from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production 11
fattening system: influence of feeding length on environmental loads. In: (5), 549–559.