LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations

Literature Review LCA for Food Products (Subject Editor: Niels Jungbluth)


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.

Main Features

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.


Agriculture environmental product declarations (EPD) fishing food functional unit life cycle assessment (LCA) product category rules (PCR) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1994): Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food products and production systems. Trends in Food Science & Technology 5, 134–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson K, Ohlsson T (1999): Life Cycle Assessment of Bread Produced on Different Scales. Int J LCA 4, 25–40Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Austreng E (1986): Fôring av laksefisk [Feeding of salmonids, in Norwegian]. In: Gjedrem T (ed), Fiskeoppdrett med framtid. Landbruksforlaget, Oslo, pp 164–184Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Basset-Mens C, van der Werf HMG (2005): Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: The case of pig production in France. Agric Ecosyst Env 105, 127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Berlin J (2002): Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12, 939–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Binswanger M (2001): Technological progress and sustainable development: What about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics 36, 119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J (2001): Application of the Life Cycle Assessment methodology to agricultural production: An example of sugar beet production with different forms of nitrogen fertilisers. E J Agro 14, 221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brentrup F (2003): Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate the Environmental Impact of Arable Crop Production. PhD-Thesis, Universität Hannover, Hannover, IX, 184 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J (2004a): Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. E J Agro 20, 247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Cederberg C, Mattsson B (2000): Life cycle assessment of milk production — A comparison of conventional and organic farming. J Cleaner Prod 8, 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. de Haan P, Mueller MG, Peters A (2006): Does the hybrid Toyota Prius lead to rebound effects? Analysis of size and number of cars previously owned by Swiss Prius buyers. Ecological Economics 58, 592–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dutilh CE, Kramer KJ (2000): Energy Consumption in the Food Chain — Comparing alternative options in food production and consumption. Ambio 29, 98–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eide MH (2002): Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Industrial Milk Production. Int J LCA 7, 115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001): Allocation in ISO 14041 — A critical review. J Cleaner Prod 9, 197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. FAO Media Office (2003): Subsidies, food imports and tariffs key issues for developing countries. Food and Agricultural Office of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  26. Fet AM (2003): Eco-efficiency reporting exemplified by case studies. Clean Technol Environ Policy 5, 232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Giger-Reverdin S, Morand-Fehra P, Tran G (2003): Literature survey of the influence of dietary fat composition on methane production in dairy cattle. Livestock Prod Sci 82, 73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Hertwich EG (2005): Consumption and the Rebound Effect: An Industrial Ecology Perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9, 85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2003): Simplified life cycle assessment of Galician milk production. Int Dairy J 13, 783–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hospido A, Tyedmers P (2005): Life cycle environmental impacts of Spanish tuna fisheries. Fish Res 76, 174–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haas G, Wetterich F, Köpke U (2001): Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agric Ecosyst Env 83, 43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ISO 14025 (2006): Environmental labelling and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures (ISO 14025:2006). International Standard. ISO, Geneva, 25 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. ISO 14040 (1997): ISO 14040:1997 — Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. ISO 14040 (2006): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). International Standard. ISO, Geneva, 20 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO 14044 (2006): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006), ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Kokkonen T, Taponen J, Anttila T, Syrjala-Qvist L, Delavaud C, Chilliard Y, Tuori M, Tesfa AT (2005): Effect of Body Fatness and Glucogenic Supplement on Lipid and Protein Mobilization and Plasma Leptin in Dairy Cows. J Dairy Sci 88, 1127–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kramer KJ, Moll HC, Nonhebel S, Wilting HC (1999): Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch food consumption. Energy Policy 27, 203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Köllner T (2003): Land use in product life cycles and ecosystem quality. PhD Thesis, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, XX, 271 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindeijer E (2000): Review of land use impact methodologies. J Cleaner Prod 8, 273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Martin S, Seeland G (1999): Effects of specialisation in cattle production on ecologically harmful emissions. Livestock Prod Sci 61, 171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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 Env 114, 226–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mouron P, Nemecek T, Scholz RW, Weber O (2006): Management influence on environmental impacts in an apple production system on Swiss fruit farms: Combining life cycle assessment with statistical risk assessment. Agric Ecosyst Env 114, 311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Nonhebel S (2004): On resource use in food production systems: the value of livestock as ‘rest-stream upgrading system’. Ecological Economics 48, 221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ramjeawon T (2004): Life Cycle Assessment of Cane-Sugar on the Island of Mauritius. Int J LCA 9, 254–260Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Schrank WE (2003): Introducing fisheries subsidies. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 437. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 52 ppGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Stern S, Sonesson U, Gunnarsson S, Öborn I, Kumm K-I, Nybrant T (2005): Sustainable Development of Food Production: A Case Study on Scenarios for Pig Production. Ambio 34, 402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Talve S (2001): Life cycle assessment of a basic lager beer. Int J LCA 6, 293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thrane M (2006): LCA of Danish Fish Products. New methods and insights. Int J LCA 11, 66–74Google Scholar
  59. Tukker A (2000): Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environ Imp Assessment Rev 20, 435–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Ward GM, Doxtaderb KG, Millera WC, Johnson DE (1993): Effects of intensification of agricultural practices on emission of greenhouse gases. Chemosphere 26, 87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ziegler F, Hansson P-A (2003): Emissions from fuel combustion in Swedish cod fishery. J Cleaner Prod 11, 303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Economics and Technology ManagementNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF Fisheries and AquacultureTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations