LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations
Goal, Scope and Background
Food production systems invariably precipitate negative environmental impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA), a standardised tool for evaluating the environmental costs of manufactured goods, is currently being expanded to address diverse product groups and production processes. Among these is food production, where the technosphere is tightly interlinked with the biosphere. The goal of this paper is to contribute to exploring the suitable functional units, system boundaries and allocation procedures for LCA in food production in general, and the product category rules (PCR) and environmental product declaration (EPD) for food products in specific.
A review of published scientific articles and conference papers treating LCA of food products is used to highlight and discuss different ways of defining the goal and scope of the LCA of food products, with an emphasis on defining the functional unit, setting the system boundaries and choosing a co-product allocation method.
Different ways of choosing the production system and system boundaries, functional unit and co-product allocation procedure are shown and discussed. The most commonly used functional unit is based on mass, but there are more sophisticated ways of expressing the functional unit for food products, like protein and energy content. A quality corrected functional unit (QCFU) is proposed.
Choice of the functional unit is highly dependent on the aim of the study. Mass or volume may be more relevant, as a basis for the functional unit, than land use. However, other qualities of the food product like nutrient content, like energy content, fat content, protein content or a combination thereof, would be a more sophisticated functional unit for food products.
Conclusions and Recommendations
While LCA methodology is a valuable tool in conducting environmental impact assessments of food products, further methodological development to account for food-specific functions, like nutrient content, is needed. To facilitate a valid comparison between different products, system boundary description and functional units need further development and standardisation. A more sophisticated choice of a functional unit, taking nutreint content of the food into consideration in addition to mass, could both reflect the function of the food better and provide a solution to the coproduct allocation problem that exists for some food products.
KeywordsAgriculture environmental product declarations (EPD) fishing food functional unit life cycle assessment (LCA) product category rules (PCR)
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Andersson K, Ohlsson T (1999): Life Cycle Assessment of Bread Produced on Different Scales. Int J LCA 4, 25–40Google Scholar
- Andersson K (2001): Certified environmental product declarations: the Arla experiences, International Conference on LCA in Foods. SIK-Dokument 143, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology and VITO, the Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Gothenburg, Sweden 26–27 April 2001, pp 161–164Google Scholar
- Audsley E (2003): Harmonisation of environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture: final report. Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028, European Commission DG VI Agriculture, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- Austreng E (1986): Fôring av laksefisk [Feeding of salmonids, in Norwegian]. In: Gjedrem T (ed), Fiskeoppdrett med framtid. Landbruksforlaget, Oslo, pp 164–184Google Scholar
- Ayer N, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007): Co-Product Allocation in Life Cycle Assessments of Seafood Production Systems: Review of Problems and Strategies. Int J LCA 12, 480–487Google Scholar
- Berlin D, Uhlin H-E (2004): Opportunity cost principles for life cycle assessment: Toward strategic decision making in agriculture. Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal 1, 187–202Google Scholar
- Brentrup F (2003): Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate the Environmental Impact of Arable Crop Production. PhD-Thesis, Universität Hannover, Hannover, IX, 184 ppGoogle Scholar
- Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Barraclough P, Kuhlmann H (2004b): Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology: II. The application to N fertilizer use in winter wheat production systems. E J Agro 20, 265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003): System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment of Milk and Beef Production. Int J LCA 8, 350–356Google Scholar
- Ceuterick D, Cowell S, Dutilh C, Olsson P, Weidema B, Wrisberg N (1998): Definition Document — LCANET Food. SIK — The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
- Charles R, Jolliet O, Gaillard G (1998): Taking into account quality in the definition of functional unit and influence on the environmental optimisation of fertiliser level. In: Ceuterick D (ed), International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Agro-Industry and Forestry, Proceedings, 3–4 December 1998, Brussels. VITO, pp PL11–PL16Google Scholar
- Christiansen K, Wesnæs M, Weidema BP (2006): Consumer demands on Type III environmental declarations. Report commissioned by ANEC — The consumer voice in standardisation, 2.-0 LCA consultants, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Ellingsen H, Aanondsen SA (2006): Environmental Impacts of Wild Caught Cod and Farmed Salmon — A Comparison with Chicken. Int J LCA 11, 60–65Google Scholar
- FAO Media Office (2003): Subsidies, food imports and tariffs key issues for developing countries. Food and Agricultural Office of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Fet AM, Skaar C (2006): Eco-labeling, product category rules and certification procedures based on ISO 14025-requirements. Int J LCA 11, 49–54Google Scholar
- Grönroos J, Seppälä J, Seuri P, Voutilainen P (2001): Agricultural production systems and the environment, Proceedings from the International Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg 26–27 April, 2001. SIK-Dokument No. 143, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, pp 131–135Google Scholar
- ISO 14025 (2006): Environmental labelling and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures (ISO 14025:2006). International Standard. ISO, Geneva, 25 ppGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14040 (1997): ISO 14040:1997 — Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14040 (2006): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). International Standard. ISO, Geneva, 20 ppGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14044 (2006): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006), ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Jungbluth N, Tietje O, Scholz RW (2000): Food Purchases: Impacts from the Consumers’ Point of View Investigated with a Modular LCA. Int J LCA 5, 134–142Google Scholar
- Katajajuuri J-M, Virtanen Y, Voutilainen P, Tuhkanen H-R (2004): Life cycle assessment results and related improvement potentials for oat and potato products as well as for cheese. In: Halberg N (ed), Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food sector — Proceeding from the 4th International Conference, October 6–8, 2003 Bygholm, Denmark. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS), Horsens, Denmark, pp 222–225Google Scholar
- Köllner T (2003): Land use in product life cycles and ecosystem quality. PhD Thesis, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, XX, 271 ppGoogle Scholar
- Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002): Impact Assessment of Resources and Land Use. In: Udo de Haes HA et al. (eds), Lifecycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola, Florida, pp 11–64Google Scholar
- Marshall KJ (2001): Functional Units for Food Product Life Cycle Assessments. Proceedings from the International Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg 26–27 April, 2001. SIK-Dokument No. 143, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, pp 105–107Google Scholar
- Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007): Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J LCA 12(1) 5–15Google Scholar
- Mungkung RT, Udo de Haes HA, Clift R (2006): Potentials and Limitations of Life Cycle Assessment in Setting Ecolabelling Criteria: A Case Study of Thai Shrimp Aquaculture Product. Int J LCA 11, 55–59Google Scholar
- Ramjeawon T (2004): Life Cycle Assessment of Cane-Sugar on the Island of Mauritius. Int J LCA 9, 254–260Google Scholar
- Schau EM (2006): Product category rules (PCR) for preparing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Product Group Wild caught fish — Draft. In: Sveen B (ed), ISO/DIS 14025 Environmental Declarations Type III. EPD Foundation Norway, OsloGoogle Scholar
- Schrank WE (2003): Introducing fisheries subsidies. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 437. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 52 ppGoogle Scholar
- Sjaunja L-O, Baevre L, Junkkarinen L, Pedersen J, Setälä J (1990): A nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. In: Gaillon P, Chabert Y (eds), Twenty-seventh session of the International Committee of Recording and Productivity of Milk Animals, July 2–6, 1990, Paris, France, pp 156–157Google Scholar
- Thrane M (2006): LCA of Danish Fish Products. New methods and insights. Int J LCA 11, 66–74Google Scholar
- Tukker A, Huppes G, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Koning Ad, Oers Lv, Suh S, Geerken T, Holderbeke MV, Jansen B, Nielsen P (2005): Environmental impacts of products (EIPRO) — Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the total final consumption of the EU25, IPTS/ESTOGoogle Scholar
- Udo de Haes HA (2006): How to approach land use in LCIA or, how to avoid the Cinderella effect? — Comments on ‘Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA’. Int J LCA 11, 219–221Google Scholar
- Ziegler F, Nilsson P, Mattsson B, Walther Y (2003): Life Cycle Assessment of Frozen Cod Fillets Including Fishery-Specific Environmental Impacts. Int J LCA 8, 39–47Google Scholar