Advertisement

Comparative life cycle assessment of margarine and butter consumed in the UK, Germany and France

  • Katarina Nilsson
  • Anna Flysjö
  • Jennifer Davis
  • Sarah Sim
  • Nicole Unger
  • Simon Bell
LCA FOR FOOD PRODUCTS

Abstract

Purpose

The goal of the study was to compare the environmental impact of butter and margarine. Altogether, seven products were studied in three European markets: UK, Germany and France.

Methods

The approach used for the analysis is descriptive (attributional) LCA. The SimaPro software PRé 2007 was used to perform the calculations. Data for the production chain of the margarine products (production of raw materials, processing, packaging and logistics) were compiled from Unilever manufacturing sites, suppliers and from literature. The edible oil data inventories have been compared with those in proprietary databases (ecoinvent and SIK food database) and they show a high degree of similarity. For the butter products, data on milk production and butter processing were taken from various published studies for the countries of interest. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for a number of parameters (functional unit, allocation method, impact of using different oil, milk and dairy data, impact of estimating GHG emissions from land use change for certain oils) in order to evaluate their influence on the comparison between margarine and butter. The sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the initial results and conclusions are robust.

Results

The results show that margarine has significantly lower environmental impact (less than half) compared to butter for three impact categories global warming potential, eutrophication potential and acidification potential. For primary energy demand, the margarines have a lower impact than butter, but the difference is not as significant. Margarines use approximately half of the land required used for producing the butter products. For POCP, the impact is higher for the margarines due to the use of hexane in the oil extraction (no similar process occurs for butter).

Conclusions

The margarine products analysed here are more environmentally favourable than the butter products. In all three markets (UK, DE and FR) the margarine products are significantly better than the butter products for the categories global warming potential, eutrophication potential and acidification potential. These findings are also valid when comparing margarines and butters between the markets; for this reason they are likely to be of general relevance for other Western European countries where similar margarine and butter production systems are found.

Keywords

Butter Carbon footprint Fat Life cycle assessment Margarine Spreads 

References

  1. Casey JW, Holden NM (2005) Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from average Irish milk production system. Agric Syst 86:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cederberg C, Mattsson B (2000) Life cycle assessment of milk production—a comparison of conventional and organic farming. J Clean Prod 8:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003) System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. Int J LCA 8(6):350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cederberg C, Flysjö A (2004) Life cycle Inventory of 23 Dairy Farms in South-Western Sweden. Report 728. SIK the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  5. Cederberg C, Flysjö A, Ericson L (2007) Livscykelanalys (LCA) av norrländsk mjölkproduktion. (Lifecycle assessment (LCA) of milk production in northern Sweden) Report 761, SIK, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  6. Corley RHV, Tinker PB (2003) The Oil Palm, 4th Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Print ISBN 9780632052127Google Scholar
  7. ecoinvent (2007) ecoinvent data v2.0, Final reports ecoinvent 2007 No. 1–25, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  8. Feitz AJ, Lundie S, Dennien G, Morian M, Jones M (2007) Generation of an industry-specific physico-chemical allocation matrix, application in the dairy industry and implications for system analysis. Int J LCA 12(2):109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N et al (2003) Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Final report ecoinvent 2000. Swiss Centre for LCI. Duebendorf. Switzerland. www.ecoinvent.ch
  10. Guinée J, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes H, van Duin R, Huijbregts M (2002) Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment, Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Haas G, Wetterich F, Köpke U (2001) Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Högaas Eide M (2002) Life cycle assessment of industrial milk production. Int J LCA 7(2):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hospido A (2005) Life cycle assessment as a tool for analysing the environmental performance of key food sectors in Galicia (Spain): milk and canned tuna. Doctoral Thesis. Santiago de Compostela. SpainGoogle Scholar
  14. IMACE (2008) International margarine association of the countries of Europe, Minutes of IMACE council of experts meeting 24 January 2008, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2007) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Change 2007, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis, (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm)
  16. ISO (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework, ISO 14040:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, ISO 14044:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2003) LCA food data base. www.lcafood.dk
  19. PAS 2050 (2008) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services (2008), ISBN 978 0 580 50978 0Google Scholar
  20. PRé Consultants (2007) Amersfoort, the Netherlands, www.pre.nlGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidt JH (2007) Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  22. Shonfield PKA, Dumelin EE (2005) A life cycle assessment of spreads and margarines. Lipid Technol 17(9):199–203Google Scholar
  23. Thomassen MA, van Calker KJ, Smits MCJ, Iepema GL, de Boer IJM (2008) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agric Syst 96:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Unilever Suppliers (2005–2008) Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  25. Unilever (2008) Environmental Performance Reporting System for manufacturing sitesGoogle Scholar
  26. Van der Werf H, Kanyarushoki C, Corson M (2009) An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 90:3643–3652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williams A G, Audsley E, Sanders D L (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra. Available on www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk, and www.defra.gov.uk

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarina Nilsson
    • 1
  • Anna Flysjö
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jennifer Davis
    • 1
  • Sarah Sim
    • 2
  • Nicole Unger
    • 2
  • Simon Bell
    • 3
  1. 1.SIK—The Swedish Institute for Food and BiotechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Unilever—Safety and Environmental Assurance CentreSharnbrookUK
  3. 3.Unilever HouseUnilever UKLeatherheadUK
  4. 4.Arla Foods ambaViby JDenmark

Personalised recommendations