Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting mass, economic value, quality-based functional units in life cycle assessment of foods towards environmental benchmarking

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Climate change is the big challenge, which definitely calls for a sustainable product declaration by life cycle assessment (LCA). In the recent years, a variety of functional units (FUs) have been applied to the comparative LCAs of product systems, but a persistent methodological challenge of applying FUs is still posed, especially in food systems. Responding to the research question of which FU is appropriate for proper environmental benchmarking, this present study revisits mass, economic value, and multiple (caloric value, protein, carbohydrate, fibre, saturated fat, minerals, vitamins) quality-based 12 FUs in food LCAs. Carbon footprints of 20 food products, expressed as Global Warming Potential 100, are calculated by openLCA 1.10.3 software, which are considered in the correlation test between the indicators per FUs using the statistical analysis, R 3.6.1. The results indicate that although the mass-based FUs (on dry/wet basis) do not reflect the actual function of food products, the FUs might be applied to the environmental benchmarking since both the FUs have a good correlation with others (R = 0.7–0.9) and vice versa, especially with the economic value-based FU to be integrated quantity & quality into a single FU. The results also reveal that it could be inappropriate to define a quality-based FU using all of macro & micro nutrients and minerals (R = 0.1–0.5), and the multiple quality-based FUs might not be appropriate for the environmental benchmarking. The comprehensive investigation of FUs for food LCAs could provide valuable insights into environmental benchmarking suitability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

DAI:

Daily allowance intake

DRI:

Daily recommended intake

EFU:

Economic value-based functional unit

FNIprot:

Finnish nutrient index for protein sources

FU:

Functional unit

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

GWP:

Global warming potential

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LFU:

Land use-based functional unit

LIM:

Limited nutrients score

MFU:

Mass-based functional unit

NQI:

Nutrient quality index

NRF:

Nutrient-rich foods index

NRV:

Nutrient reference values

QFU:

Quality-based functional unit

RF:

Reference flow

CalDRI :

Daily recommended intake of caloric value

MinDRI i and VitDRI i :

Daily Recommended Intake of ith mineral and vitamin

Mini and Viti :

Contents of ith mineral and vitamin

nutrientDAI j :

Daily Allowance Intake of jth nutrient to be limited

nutrientDRI i :

Daily Recommended Intake of ith nutrient

nutrienti :

Content of ith nutrient

nutrientj :

Content of jth nutrient to be limited

Pri:

Price per unit mass

Pro, Car, Fib:

Contents of protein, carbohydrate, fibre

ProDRI, CarDRI, FibDRI :

Daily Recommended Intake of protein, carbohydrate, fibre

Wt:

Water content

Cal:

Caloric value

Car:

Carbohydrate

Fib:

Fibre

lim2:

2 Limited nutrients scores (Na, saturated fat)

min5:

5 Minerals (Ca, Fe, Mg, K, Zn)

nrf14.2:

14 Nutrient-rich foods indexes (protein, carbohydrate, fibre, Ca, Fe, Mg, K, Zn, B1, B2, B6, C, D, E) and 2 limited nutrients scores (Na, saturated fat)

nrf14:

14 Nutrient-rich foods indexes (protein, carbohydrate, fibre, Ca, Fe, Mg, K, Zn, B1, B2, B6, C, D, E)

pri:

Price

Pro:

Protein

Vit6:

6 Vitamins (B1, B2, B6, C, D, E)

References

  • Bertoluci G, Leroy Y, Olsson A (2014) Exploring the environmental impacts of olive packaging solutions for the European food market. J Clean Prod 64:234–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake S (2008) Vitamins and minerals. McGraw Hill. https://doi.org/10.1036/0071489010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerutti AK, Beccaro GL, Bruun S, Bosco S, Donno D, Notarnicola B, Bounous G (2014) Life cycle assessment application in the fruit sector: State of the art and recommendations for environmental declarations of fruit products. J Clean Prod 73:125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen WT, Hsu CI (2015) Greenhouse gas emission estimation for temperature-controlled food distribution systems. J Clean Prod 104:139–147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cornejo PK, Santana MVE, Hokanson DR, Mihelcic JR, Zhang Q (2014) Carbon Footprint of Water Reuse and Desalination: a Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Estimation Tools. http://www.iwaponline.com/jwrd/up/jwrd2014058.htm

  • Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Strazza C, Del Borghi M (2014) An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain. J Clean Prod 78:121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djekic I, Sanjuán N, Clemente G, Jambrak AR, Djukić-Vuković A, Brodnjak UV, Pop E, Thomopoulos R, Tonda A (2017) Review on environmental models in the food chain - current status and future perspectives. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drewnowski A, Fulgoni V (2008) Nutrient profiling of foods: creating a nutrient-rich food index. Nutr Rev 66:23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox SI (2016) Human Physiology. McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY. ISBN 978–0–07–783637–5

  • Fulgoni VL, Keast DR, Drewnowski A (2009) Development and validation of th nutrient-rich foods index: a tool to measure nutritional quality of foods. J Nutr 139:1549–1554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giusti G et al (2023) Environmental impacts management of grain and sweet maize through life cycle assessment in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:6559–6574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallstrom E, Davis J, Woodhouse A, Sonesson U (2018) Using dietary quality scores to assess sustainability of food products and human diets: a systematic review. Ecol Indicat 93:219–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Willett WC (2013) Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 47:12632–12647

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hospido A, Davis J, Berlin J, Sonesson U (2010) A review of methodological issues affecting LCA of novel food products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:44–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan, ISBN 4–88788–032–4

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

  • IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013. The physical science basis. Working group I contribution to the 5th assessment report of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org

  • Jacquemin L, Pontalier P-Y, Sablayrolles C (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the process industry: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1028–1041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen JK, Arlbjørn JS (2014) Product carbon footprint of rye bread. J Clean Prod 82:45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lares-Orozco MF, Robles-Morúa A, Yepez EA, Handler RM (2016) Global warming potential of intensive wheat production in the Yaqui Valley, Mexico: a resource for the design of localized mitigation strategies. J Clean Prod 127:522–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuliffe et al (2020) Applications of nutritional functional units in commodity-level life cycle assessment (LCA) of agri-food systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:208–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuliffe et al (2023) Protein quality as a complementary functional unit in life cycle assessment (LCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 28:146–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Milà I, Canals L, Burnip GM, Cowell SJ (2006) Evaluation of the environmental impacts of apple production using life cycle assessment (LCA): case study in New Zealand. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:226–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moberg E, Andersson MW, Säll S, Hansson PA, Röös E (2019) Determining the climate impact of food for use in a climate tax—design of a consistent and transparent model. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01597-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohareb EA, Heller MC, Guthrie PM (2018) Cities’ role in mitigating united states food system greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Sci Technol 52:5545–5554

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mujica M, Blanco G, Santalla E (2016) Carbon footprint of honey produced in Argentina. J Clean Prod 116:50–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nc O, Pak HS, Om KC, Choe KH (2019) An evaluation of alternatives to energy recovery from municipal solid waste part 2: energy balance and carbon footprint. Energy Sour Part A. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1670756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nc O, Hwang CJ, Ri PC, Kim CH (2020) Investigating effective waste–to-energy options from refuse-derived fuel resources. Proc Inst Civ Eng Energy. https://doi.org/10.1680/jener.19.00074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nc O et al (2022) Life cycle-carbon footprints for environmental performance/labeling of crop-based food products: analyses of complementary functional units and hotspots. Int J Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04174-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikkhah A, Khojastehpour M, Emadi B, Taheri-Rad A, Khorramdel S (2015) Environmental impacts of peanut production system using life cycle assessment methodology. J Clean Prod 92:84–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Open LCA (2020) GreenDelta, http://www.openlca.org

  • Ponsioen T, van Der Werf H (2017) Five propositions to harmonize environmental footprints of food and beverages. J Clean Prod 153:457–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team; R (2019) A language and environment for statistical computing; r foundation for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org/ (accessed 12 Dec. 2019)

  • Ridoutt B (2021) Bringing nutrition and life cycle assessment together (nutritional LCA): opportunities and risks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:1932–1936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen M, Fogelholm M, Tahvonen R, Kurppa S (2017) Taking nutrition into account within the life cycle assessment of food products. J Clean Prod 149:828–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salou T, Mouel CL, van der Werf HMG (2016) Environmental impacts of dairy system intensification: the functional unit matters! J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:255–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonesson U, Davis J, Flysjö A, Gustavsson J, Witthöft C (2016) Protein quality as functional unit—a methodological framework for inclusion in life cycle assessment of food. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonesson U, Davis J, Hallstrom E, Woodhouse A (2019) Dietary-dependent nutrient quality indexes as a complementary functional unit in LCA: a feasible option? J Clean Prod 211:620–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyszler M, Kramer G, Blonk H (2014) Comparing apples with oranges: on the functional equivalence of food products for comparative LCAs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1482–1487

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van der Werf HMG, Salou T (2015) Economic value as a functional unit for environmental labelling of food and other consumer products. J Clean Prod 94:394–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Werf HMG, Garnett T, Corson MS, Hayashi K, Huisingh D, Cederberg C (2014) Towards eco-efficient agriculture and food systems: theory, praxis and future challenges. J Clean Prod 73:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dooren C, Douma A, Aiking H, Vellinga P (2017) Proposing a novel index reflecting both climate impact and nutritional impact of food products. Ecol Econ 131:389–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez-Rowe I, Villanueva-Rey P, Mallo J, De la Cerda JJ, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2013) Carbon footprint of a multi-ingredient seafood product from a business-to-business perspective. J Clean Prod 44:200–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Xu W, Peng Z, Yang Q, Zhang Z (2018) Effects of different functional units on carbon footprint values of different carbohydrate-rich foods in China. J Clean Prod 198:907–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Miss Yun-Kyong Kim for her assistance of the result analysis and review. This study was supported by Kim Il Sung University, Pyongyang, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Revisiting Mass, Economic Value, quality-based functional units in life cycle assessment of Foods towards Environmental Benchmarking

Funding

This current study was supported by the Kim Il Sung University, including salaries, equipment, and supplies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Conservation, Faculty of Global Environmental Science, Kim Il Sung University, Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

    N.-C. O, C.-J. Hwang, J.–S. Pak, Y.–I. Jon, I.–K. Ri & T.-H. Choe

Authors
  1. N.-C. O
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C.-J. Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J.–S. Pak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y.–I. Jon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I.–K. Ri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T.-H. Choe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Nam-Chol O was involved in conceptualization; Nam-Chol O and Chol–Jin Hwang helped in methodology; Jin–Sok Pak, Yong–Il Jon, and Il–Kwang Ri contributed to data collection; Nam-Chol O, Tong–Hyok Choe, and Jin–Sok Pak helped in analysis and investigation; Nam-Chol O and Chol–Jin Hwang were involved in writing of original draft and preparation; Nam-Chol O was involved in writing of review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N.-C. O.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: Palanivel Sathishkumar.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 42 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O, NC., Hwang, CJ., Pak, J. et al. Revisiting mass, economic value, quality-based functional units in life cycle assessment of foods towards environmental benchmarking. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21, 2975–2988 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05115-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05115-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation