Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

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
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used to evaluate the environmental load of a product, process, or activity throughout its life cycle. Todays LCA users are a mixture of individuals with skills in different disciplines who want to evaluate their products, processes, or activities in a life cycle context. This study attempts to present some of the LCA studies on agricultural and industrial food products, 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 sustainable options. Due to the recent development of LCA methodologies and dissemination programs by international and local bodies, use of LCA is rapidly increasing in agricultural and industrial food products. A network of information sharing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA development process. The literatures also suggest that LCA coupled with other approaches provides much more reliable and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious policy makers, producers, and consumers 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. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 2 November 2007 Received in revised form 28 May 2008 Accepted 7 June 2008 Available online 22 June 2008 Keywords: Produce Food Life cycle Emissions LCA

Contents 1. 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LCA methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Goal definition and scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LCA studies on food products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. LCA of industrial food products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. LCA of dairy and meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. LCA of other agricultural products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Land, water and other approaches in LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. LCA studies on packaging systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. LCA of food waste management systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ongoing efforts on LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 8 8 8 8

3.

4. 5. 6.

* 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 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

1. Introduction The food industry is one of the worlds largest industrial sectors and hence is a large user of energy. Greenhouse gas emission, which has increased remarkably due to tremendous energy use, has resulted in global warming, perhaps the most serious problem that humankind faces today. Food production, preservation and distribution consume a considerable amount of energy, which contributes to total CO2 emission. Moreover, consumers in developed countries demand safe food of high quality that has been produced with minimal adverse impacts on the environment (Boer, 2002). There is increased awareness that the environmentally conscious consumer of the future will consider ecological and ethical criteria in selecting food products (Andersson et al., 1994). It is thus essential to evaluate the environmental impact and the utilization of resources in food production and distribution systems for sustainable consumption. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool for evaluating environmental effects of a product, process, or activity throughout its life cycle or lifetime, which is known as a from cradle to grave analysis. Environmental awareness inuences the way in which legislative bodies such as governments will guide the future development of agricultural and industrial food production systems. Although several researchers have compiled LCA studies to emphasize the need for LCA (Foster et al., 2006; Boer, 2002; Ekvall and Finnveden, 2001; Adisa, 1999; Andersson et al., 1994), some recent advances in agricultural LCAs have yet to be reported. Therefore, this study aims to present recent advances in LCA and provide a specic review of LCA in several food products. 2. LCA methodology Although the concept of LCA evolved in the 1960s and there have been several efforts to develop LCA methodology since the 1970s, it has received much attention from individuals in environmental science elds since the 1990s. For this concept many names have been used, for instance eco-balancing (Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Japan), resource and environment prole analysis (USA), environmental proling and cradle-to-grave assessment. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) has been involved in increasing the awareness and understanding of the concept of LCA. In the 1990s, SETAC in North America, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sponsored workshops and several projects to develop and promote a consensus on a framework for conducting life cycle inventory analysis and impact assessment. Similar efforts were undertaken by SETACEurope, other international organizations (such as the International Organization for Standardization, ISO), and LCA practitioners worldwide. As a result of these efforts, consensus has been achieved on an overall LCA framework and a well-dened inventory methodology (ISO, 1997).

The method is rapidly developing into an important tool for authorities, industries, and individuals in environmental sciences. Fig. 1 shows the stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006). The purpose of an LCA can be (1) comparison of alternative products, processes or services; (2) comparison of alternative life cycles for a certain product or service; (3) identication of parts of the life cycle where the greatest improvements can be made. 2.1. Goal denition and scoping Goal denition and scoping is perhaps the most important component of an LCA because the study is carried out according to the statements made in this phase, which denes the purpose of the study, the expected product of the study, system boundaries, functional unit (FU) and assumptions. The system boundary of a system is often illustrated by a general input and output ow diagram. All operations that contribute to the life cycle of the product, process, or activity fall within the system boundaries. The purpose of FU is to provide a reference unit to which the inventory data are normalized. The denition of FU depends on the environmental impact category and aims of the investigation. The functional unit is often based on the mass of the product under study. However, nutritional and economic values of products (Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000) and land area are also being used. 2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis This phase is the most work intensive and time consuming compared to other phases in an LCA, mainly because of data collection. The data collection can be less time consuming if good databases are available and if customers and suppliers are willing to help. Many LCA databases exist and can normally be bought together with LCA software. Data on transport, extraction of raw materials, processing of materials, production of usually used products such as plastic and cardboard, and disposal can normally be found in an LCA database. Data from databases can be used for processes that are not product specic, such as general data on the production of electricity, coal or packaging. For product-specic data, site-specic data are required. The data should include all inputs and outputs from the processes. Inputs are energy (renewable and non-renewable), water, raw materials, etc. Outputs are the products and co-products, and emission (CO2, CH4, SO2, NOx and CO) to air, water and soil (total suspended solids: TSS, biological oxygen demand: BOD, chemical oxygen demand: COD and chlorinated organic compounds: AOXs) and solid waste generation (municipal solid waste: MSW and landlls). 2.3. Impact assessment 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 phase, the inventory results are assigned to different impact categories, based on the expected types of impacts on the environment. Impact assessment in LCA generally consists of the following elements: classication, characterization, normalization and valuation. Classication is the process of assignment and initial aggregation of LCI data into common impact groups. Characterization is the assessment of the magnitude of potential impacts of each inventory ow into its corresponding environmental impact (e.g., modeling the potential impact of carbon dioxide and methane on global warming). Characterization provides a way to directly compare the LCI results within each category. Characterization factors are commonly referred to as equivalency factors. Normalization expresses potential impacts in ways that can be compared (e.g., comparing the global warming impact of carbon dioxide and meth-

Life cycle assessment framework

Inventory analysis Impact assessment

Fig. 1. Stages of an LCA (ISO, 2006).

Interpretation

Goal and scope definition

Direct applications: - Product development and improvement - Strategic planning - Public policy making - Marketing - Other

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

ane for the two options). Valuation is the assessment of the relative importance of environmental burdens identied in the classication, characterization, and normalization stages by assigning them weighting which allows them to be compared or aggregated. Impact categories include global effects (global warming, ozone depletion, etc.); regional effects (acidication, eutrophication, photo-oxidant formation, etc.); and local effects (nuisance, working conditions, effects of hazardous waste, effects of solid waste, etc.). 2.4. Interpretation The purpose of an LCA is to draw conclusions that can support a decision or can provide a readily understandable result of an LCA. The inventory and impact assessment results are discussed together in the case of an LCIA, or the inventory only in the case of LCI analysis, and signicant environmental issues are identied for conclusions and recommendations consistent with the goal and scope of the study. This is a systematic technique to identify and quantify, check and evaluate information from the results of the LCI and LCIA, and communicate them effectively. This assessment may include both quantitative and qualitative measures of improvement, such as changes in product, process and activity design; raw material use, industrial processing, consumer use and waste management.

In the case of beer production, the emission was reported to be the highest during wort production followed by ltration and packaging and lastly fermentation and storage (Takamoto et al., 2004). Koroneos et al. (2005) reported that the bottle production, followed by packaging and beer production, was the subsystem that accounts for most of the emissions. The production and manufacturing of the packaging elements as well as the harvesting and transport of cereals are responsible for the largest portion (Hospido et al., 2005). Takamoto et al. (2004) did not include the transport of resource supplies, supply of beer containers, waste treatment, shipping, and recovery from the market, and estimated only CO2 emission. Koroneos et al. (2005) and Hospido et al. (2005) included the transportation, and waste treatment and recycling of glass bottles. This difference in system boundaries might lead to different interpretation of the results. LCA of tomato ketchup was carried out to identify the hotspots in its life cycle and to nd the way to improve the products environmental performance (Andersson et al., 1998; Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999). The functional unit is dened as 1 ton of tomato ketchup consumed. Packaging and food processing were reported to be hotspots (where the environmental impacts are the highest in an LCA) for many impact categories. These studies revealed that the current geographical location of the production systems of ketchup is preferable; contributions to acidication can be reduced signicantly and the environmental prole 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 The growing concern about sustainable food production and consumption prompted different research activities on food production and distribution systems including agricultural produce. At the same time, international trade in food products also continues to increase. Predominantly, the LCA methodology has been applied to industrial products and processes. Although most of the life cycle studies carried out so far involve either agricultural production or industrial rening, several LCA studies on agricultural products have included agricultural production and industrial processing, and qualities of nished food products, including bioethanol and bio-diesel (Audsley et al., 1997; Sonesson and Davis, 2005; Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; Berlin, 2002; Berlin et al., 2007; Kim and Dale, 2002, 2005; Janulis, 2004). 3.1. LCA of industrial food products Bread is one of the important industrial food products, and has been studied by several researchers (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999; Holderbeke et al., 2003; Braschkat et al., 2003; Rosing and Nielsen, 2003). The studies include crop production methods (conventional and organic) to milling technologies and bread production processes, packaging and cleaning agents. A scenario combining organic production of wheat, industrial milling and a large bread factory is reported to be the most advantageous way of producing bread. There is a stronger distinction between industrial and household production chains than between conventional and organic. However, an organic method requires more land area than required for conventional wheat production. The results were analyzed based on the mass (kg) of bread. The primary production and the transportation stages were reported to be highly signicant for most of the impact categories. The processing stage (baking) is signicant for photo-oxidant formation and energy use. Eutrophication impacts are associated with cultivation which is linked to a leakage of nitrogen from elds and emissions of nitrogenous compounds in the production of nitrogen fertilizer and the use of tractors. 3.2. LCA of dairy and meat production The dairy industry has been studied extensively to determine its environmental impact in many European countries. Milk is one of the most important dairy products in European countries, and it has been reported that organic milk production can reduce pesticide use and mineral surplus in agriculture, but requires substantially more arable land than conventional production (Williams et al., 2006; Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000). These studies revealed that measures to reduce the potential impact from milk production need to be implemented in both systems. The suggested improvement in conventional production are the following: reduce nutrient surplus in farms, less use of pesticide in imported concentrated feeds, and on-farm fodder production and increased use of domestically or regionally produced feed ingredients. A greater use of concentrated feed, a high self-supporting capacity of fodder and cultivation of high yielding crops were recommended for organic production. The most adequate formulation of cattle feed and implementation of treatment systems for water and air emissions can reduce the environmental impacts. The agricultural phase was reported to be the main hotspot in the life cycle of milk and semi-hard cheeses (Hospido et al., 2003; Berlin, 2002). Packaging, waste management and cleaning processes also have potential impacts (Eide, 2002; Casey and Holden, 2003). The main environmental impacts associated with dairy processing are the high consumption of water, the discharge of efuent with high organic components and energy consumption. It is also reported that frequent product changes increase the milk waste, and this can be reduced through product sequencing (scheduling of products) (Berlin et al., 2007). Sonesson and Berlin (2003) reported that the amount of packaging materials used is also an important factor. The use of less amount of packaging materials leads to the greater energy saving since less packaging material is produced. Boer et al. (2003) reported that the effectiveness of environmental indicators is dependent on the method of analysis. The inputoutput accounting (IO) of nutrients yields effective indicators with respect to eutrophication and acidication. On the other hand, Ecological

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

Footprint Analysis (EFP) and LCA yield similar indicators regarding land and energy use. The milk production system produces multiple products (milk, meat, manure, etc.) and it is difcult to decide to what extent the emissions are related to milk and co-products. A system expansion (the boundaries of the system investigated are expanded to include the alternative production of exported functions. For example, inclusion of beef and meat in the LCA of milk is considered to be a system expansion, where the function of beef and manure is exported from the life of milk. Milk is considered the main product, and beef and manure are the co-products) has been suggested to avoid these difculties (Dalgaard and Halberg, 2003; Cederberg and Stadig, 2003). An industry-specic physico-chemical allocation matrix has also been developed for dairy industry to overcome the inherited bias of mass, process energy, or price allocations for a multi-product manufacturing plant, and this gives a more realistic indication of resource use or emissions per product (Feitz et al., 2007). The dairy industry (milk) was evaluated to estimate whole system (dairy farm + grazing and forage land) effects on the intensication of nitrogen fertilizer or on forage crop integration. The volume of milk (m3) is used as the functional unit. It is reported that nitrogen fertilizer increased production and economic efciency but decreased environmental efciency. The most signicant environmental impact of the agricultural subsystem is eutrophication which is linked to the leakage of nitrogen and phosphorus from production and use of fertilizers. In contrast, increased use of forage produced off-farm increased total land use efciency and production efciency, with no loss in environmental efciency per liter of milk (Ledgard et al., 2003). LCA studies on meat production have been reported by several researchers. The environmental impacts of beef-fattening system are reported to be dependent on the feeding length, feed production and type of feed, animal housing and manure storage (Ogino et al., 2002, 2004; Nez et al., 2005; Hakansson et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2006; Nemecek, 2006). A shorter feeding length lowered the environmental impacts. The feeding stage is reported to be the most important factor for environmental impacts and the infrastructure is also relevant, especially for energy consumption and human toxicity (Erzinger et al., 2003; Nez et al., 2005). The results are referred to the mass of the product. It was also reported that organic farming reduces pesticide use but requires more land and leads to higher global warming impacts than nonorganic systems in UK conditions (Williams et al., 2006). In contrast, organic farming reduces the global warming potential associated with the nished product in sheep farming (Williams et al., 2006). Impacts were reported to be similar for conventional and organic pig farming systems on a per-kg basis, with respect to lower emissions of ammonia and nitrate from organic systems. However, uncertainties in emission calculations were reported for different practices, at some points within the system which inuenced the results (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2003, 2005). Replacement of soya meal feed by pea and rapeseed-cakes is favorable for pork production. Introduction of green legumes in intensive crop rotations with high proportion of cereals and nitrogen fertilizer is advantageous. LCA studies on meat production seldom extend beyond the meat production stage (i.e., agricultural). Studies which cover more of the life cycle indicate that agricultural production is the main source of impacts in the life cycle of meat products (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2008). Chicken production is reported to be most environmentally efcient followed by pork, with beef being the least efcient if protein is considered as the functional unit. However, pork production appears to the most environmentally efcient if functional unit is energy content (Roy et al., 2008). For both the functional units beef is reported to be the least efcient, might be because of the greater feed conversion ratio (mass of the feed consumed divided by the gain of body

mass) results in higher emission from feed production. These studies revealed that the enteric or gut CH4 emission from livestock and N2O emission from feed (crops) production are major contributors to global warming for dairy and meat products. 3.3. LCA of other agricultural products Rice is one of the most important agricultural commodities in the world. The life cycle of rice includes production and postharvest phases. Breiling et al. (1999) studied the production of rough rice (paddy) in Japan to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study reported that GHG emission is dependent on location, size of farms and the variety of rice. Roy et al. (2005) studied the life cycle of parboiled rice (post-harvest phases) produced at a small scale by local processes and reported that environmental load from the life cycle of rice varies from process to process; however, environmental load was greater for parboiled rice compared to untreated rice (non-parboiled rice). Life cycle inventory of meals (breakfast, lunch and supper consist of rice, wheat, soybeans, crude and rened sugar, tomato, dried noodle, vegetable oil, cooked rice, meat) was also reported. Emission from cooking is reported to be 0.116, 0.773, 0.637, 0.423 and 0.295 kg/ meal for breakfast, lunch, Japanese-supper, Western-supper and Chinese-supper, respectively. The study revealed that the life cycle CO2 emission was higher for protein-rich products followed by carbohydrate-rich products (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006). Sugar beet production was analyzed using the Eco-indicator 95 (Brentrup et al., 2001), and a developed LCA methodology was used for winter wheat production (Brentrup et al., 2004a,b). It was concluded that the economic and environmental aspects of high yielding crop production systems are not necessarily in conict, whereas under- or over-supply of nitrogen fertilizers leads to decreasing resource use efciency. At low nitrogen rates the land use was the key factor, whereas at a high nitrogen rates eutrophication was the major problem. Bennett et al. (2004) reported that the genetically modied (GM) herbicide tolerant sugar beet production would be less harmful to the environment and human health than growing the conventional crop, largely due to lower emission from herbicide manufacture, transport and eld operations. Haas et al. (2001) studied three different farming intensities (by varying farmgate N and P balances) intensive (N: 80.1 and P: 5.3 kg/ha), extensied (N: 31.4 and P: 4.5 kg/ha), and organic (N: 31.1 and P: 2.3 kg/ha) in the Allgu region in Germany. The area (ha) and mass of the product (ton) were the functional units. The study revealed that extensied and organic farms could reduce the negative effects in abiotic impact categories of energy use, global warming potential, and ground water compared to intensive farming by renouncing mineral nitrogen fertilizer. Acidication and eutrophication were also reported to be higher for intensive farming compared to those for extensied or organic farming. LCA studies on potatoes have also been reported (Mattsson and Walln, 2003; Williams et al., 2006) with regard to the production methods and location of production. Mattsson and Walln (2003) suggested that organic cultivation is considerably less energy intensive. In contrast, energy input is reported to be the same for organic and conventional production (Williams et al., 2006). Mass of the product was used as the functional unit in both studies. By shifting from conventional to organic production, energy in fertilizer production is replaced by energy for additional machines and machinery operation, but it requires more land in organic systems. Several researchers studied the life cycle of tomato and the results were referred to different functional units: mass (kg or ton: Antn et al., 2004a,b, 2005; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES, 2003; Shiina et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008) or area (ha: Muoz et al., 2004) or both (Hayashi, 2006). It has been reported that the method of cultivation (greenhouse or open eld, organic or

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

conventional, and hydroponic or soil-based), variety, location of cultivation, and packaging and distribution systems affect the LCI of tomatoes (Stanhill, 1980; Andersson et al., 1998; NIAES, 2003; Antn et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2006; Hayashi, 2005; Shiina et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2008). The studies vary widely on emissions from cultivation perhaps because of differences in location, method of cultivation, and variety. It has also been reported that GHG emissions from tomato cultivation in greenhouses are dependent on the type and construction of the greenhouse (or any similar structure) (Antn et al., 2005). The LCI of tomato imported which includes storage and transport by Sweden from Israel (CarlssonKanyama, 1998) was reported to be far less than that of local production (the farmgate emissions) for greenhouses in the UK (Williams et al., 2006). The life cycle of tomatoes has also been studied to determine the environmental impacts of the cropping system, pest control methods (CPM: chemical pest management and IPM: integrated pest management) and waste management scenarios (Antn et al., 2004a,b; Muoz et al., 2004). Input resources are less in the case of plastic covers compared to protected cultivation (greenhouses). The CPM method has a higher level of contamination in greenhouses compared to the IPM. The relative impacts are reported to be highly dependent on the selection of specic pesticides and crop stage development at the moment of pesticide application. It was reported that both CPM and IPM methods could be improved by careful selection of pesticides, and composting of biodegradable matter is the best way to improve environmental factors. It was also reported that a comparison of pesticides is feasible and pollution sources of highest concern are identiable. Margni et al. (2002) concluded that food intake results in the highest toxic exposure (about 103105 times higher) than through drinking water or inhalation. 3.4. Land, water and other approaches in LCA The UNEPSETAC life cycle initiative expects to provide a common basis for the future development of mutually consistent impact assessment methods. This initiative includes methods for the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with water consumption and land use (Jolliet et al., 2004). Ecosystem thermodynamics and remote sensing techniques were considered as a promising tool to assess land use impacts in a more direct way and to measure ecosystem thermal characteristics. Once operational, it may offer a quick and cheap alternative to quantify land use impacts in any terrestrial ecosystem of any size (Wagendrop et al., 2006). Lindeijer (2000) explored the biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA and revealed that additional indicators might be necessary for wider acceptance by experts. Soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure, soil pH, phosphorus, potassium status of the soil, and biodiversity are good choices for indicators (Mattsson et al., 2000). The ecoinvent 2000 project group developed a simplied methodology to incorporate the land use impact in LCA considering the recommendations of the SETAC LCIA working group (Jungbluth and Frischknecht, 2004). The balance of the total surfaces transformed indicates whether the surface of a certain type of land is decreased or increased. Impacts on water resources are seldom included despite the fact that food production and processing account for the majority of water use globally (Foster et al., 2006). Ecological footprint analyses compare human demand on nature with the biospheres ability to regenerate resources and provide services by assessing the biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes and to absorb corresponding waste. This method is similar to LCA, where the consumption of energy, food, building material, water and other resources is converted into a normalized measure of land area known as global hectares (gha). It can be used to explore the sustainability of indi-

vidual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industrial sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations (Global Footprint Network, 2008). The ecological footprint on food consumption which has been reported by several researchers (Collins et al., 2005; Frey and Barrett, 2006) is dependent on the categories of meals (dietary choices) and location (cities or regions or countries). In 2001, the citizens of Cardiff had an ecological footprint of 5.59 gha/resident (Collins et al., 2005) and the world ecological footprint was 2.2 gha/person, and the ecological footprint of the diet of Scotland was reported to be 0.75 gha/person (Frey and Barrett, 2006). Jungbluth et al. (2000) used a simplied modular LCA approach to evaluate impacts from the consumers point of view. Six different subgroups (time-short anti-ecologist, human-supermarket shopper, label-sensitive shopper, environmentally unconscious regional-product fan, imperfect ecologist and ideal ecologist) were considered to calculate their impacts for ve single aspects of decision: type of agricultural practice, origin, packaging material, type of preservation and consumption. Differences from the consumers point of view arise mainly from differences among meat from organic production and from integrated production. Poultry and pork show the lowest impacts while grazing animals show the highest. Greenhouse production and vegetables transported by air cause the highest surplus environmental impact. Avoiding air-transported food products leads to the highest decrease of environmental impacts. The study explored that consumers have the chance to reduce the environmental impacts signicantly due to their food purchases. The environmental impact from purchases of a certain amount of meat or vegetables may vary by a factor of 2.5 or 8, respectively. 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 weekly UK food basket by calculating the costs arising at different stages from the farm to consumer plates (for 12 major commodities). Changes in both farm production and food transport have resulted in the imposition of new levels of environmental costs. Actions to reduce the farm and food mile externalities, and shift consumer decisions on specic shopping preferences and transport choices would have a substantial impact on environmental outcomes. Krozer (2008) explored that the costs of pollution control can in several cases be avoided through focused actions in the life cycle, including changes in suppliers, adaptation of the manufacturing process and consumer behavior. These studies suggested that the introduction of land, water and other approaches in agricultural LCA would provide additional indicators in agricultural LCA, lead to better interpretation of the results and enable more reliable and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious decision makers, producers and consumers. 3.5. LCA studies on packaging systems Packaging is a fundamental element of almost every food product and a vital source of environmental burden and waste. Packaging isolates food from factors affecting loss of quality such as oxygen, moisture and microorganisms, and provides cushioning performance during transportation and storage. The packaging of food products presents considerable challenges to the food and beverage industry, and minimizing the packaging and modifying both primary and secondary food packaging present an optimizing opportunity for these industries (Henningsson et al., 2004; Ajinomoto Group, 2003; Hyde et al., 2001). The production stage of the packaging system is reported be the principal cause for the major impacts. Increasing recycling rates and reducing weight in the primary package are environmentally more efcient (Ferro et al., 2003). Hospido et al. (2005) concluded that production and transportation of packaging materials contribute to one-third of

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

the total global environmental impact of the life cycle of beer with the use of glass bottles. Reusable glass bottle packaging systems are reported to be the most environmentally favorable systems compared to disposable glass bottles, aluminum cans and steel cans for beer production (Ekvall et al., 1998). Modied atmosphere packaging is reported to be benecial compared to that of paper box and cold chain distribution for imported tomato (Roy et al., 2008). The use of polylaminate bags instead of metallic cans in coffee packaging could be a better option in the case of small packages, even though this solution does not favor material recycling (Monte et al., 2005). In the comparative study on the egg package, polystyrene packages contribute more to acidication potential, winter and summer smog, while recycled paper packages contribute more to heavy metal and carcinogenic substances (Zabaniotou and Kassidi, 2003). Ross and Evans (2003) concluded that the recycling and reuse strategies for plastic-based packaging materials can yield signicant environmental benets. Mourad et al. (2008) explored the post-consumer recycling rate of aseptic packaging for long-life milk and revealed that it is possible to increase the recycling rate to 70% of post-consumer packages in the future, and a 48% reduction of GWP could be attained. Sonesson and Berlin (2003) reported that the amount of packaging materials used is an important factor in the milk supply chain in Sweden. (Williams et al., 2008) reported that there are obvious potentials to increase customer satisfaction and at the same time decrease the environmental impact of food packaging systems, if the packaging design helps to decrease food losses. Hyde et al. (2001) argued that a reduction of 12% of raw materials can be achieved in the food and beverage industry, and it makes a signicant contribution to company protability by improving yields per unit output and by reducing costs associated with waste disposal. The alternative packaging scenarios are found to be useful to reduce environmental burdens of a packaging system. However, it would be much better to use lesser amount of packaging materials without deteriorating the quality of food and consumers acceptance to reduce environmental burden from food packaging. Post-harvest practices affect the quality of food. If inappropriate measures are employed, the quality of food might deteriorate during transportation and distribution and thus cause food loss. Quality deterioration and loss of food lead to more production to meet the food demand and increase the LCI (more production and more distribution). On the other hand a heavily equipped quality control system results in an increase in LCI. Shiina (1998) has reported the

relationship between relative LCI and loss of food, and concluded that there should be the optimum point of loss to minimize the LCI for food supply chain (Fig. 2). The relative LCI = (x1 + x2)/x3 (where x1 is production LCI, x2 is post-harvest LCI and x3 is production LCI without loss), if x2 = x3/loss in decimal. Hence, the packaging or any other means of quality control activities on food should be based on optimum point of loss of a certain food. 3.6. LCA of food waste management systems Waste minimization in the food industry has lead to improvements demonstrated in other sectors energy efciency, reduction of raw material use, reduction in water consumption and increasing reuse and recycling on site (Hyde et al., 2001). Generation of liquid efuent with high organic content and the generation of large quantities of sludge and solid wastes are reported to be a common problem to all food industries (UNEP, 1995). Ramjeawon (2000) argued to separate wastewater in the cane sugar industry into two or three streams, most importantly separating the most polluted wastewater from the large volume of relatively unpolluted barometric condenser water, thereby reducing the scale and expense of treatment required. Hirai et al. (2000) evaluated four food waste treatment scenarios (incineration, incineration after bio-gasication, bio-gasication followed by composting and composting). The potential contribution to climate change and human toxicity was reported to be lower for scenarios with a bio-gasication process. Lundie and Peters (2005) reported that home composting has the least environmental impact in all categories if operated aerobically. The environmental performance of the codisposal (landlling of food waste with municipal waste) option is relatively good compared to centralized composting of green waste (food and garden waste), except with respect to climate change and eutrophication potential. Centralized composting has relatively poor environmental performance due to the energy-intense waste collection activities it requires. Tomatoes cultivated under protected conditions produce large amounts of solid waste with certain environmental impact. Muoz et al. (2004) reported that composting of biodegradable solid waste is the best way to improve environmental factors. Material recycling followed by incineration is reported to be a much better option than direct waste incineration (Nyland et al., 2003). In contrast, non-readily recyclable plastic pouches for detergents outperform the more recyclable bottles in terms of energy consumption, air and water emissions and solid waste, since they use much less material in the rst place (EUROPEN, 1999). Waste management scenarios with energy recovery achieve better environmental 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 McKinley, 2008). These studies indicate that alternate waste management scenarios are useful, but an integrated waste management system would be much better to reduce overall environmental burdens of food waste. 4. Ongoing efforts on LCA The international LCA community is still struggling with issues related to LCA databases, data collection and data quality goals. A network of information sharing and exchanges of experience has expedited the development process of LCA. Several North American and Western European countries have led these efforts. In addition, researchers of different international organizations are closely involved in the development processes of LCA including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), the

2.5

2.0

Relative LCI

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0 20 40 60 80

Loss (%)
Fig. 2. Relationship between relative LCI and loss in food supply chain (Shiina, 1998).

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the European Commission and the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri Business, Denmark. Their mission is to develop and disseminate practical tools for evaluating the opportunities, risks, and trade-offs, associated with products and services over their entire life cycle. Recently, the former four standards (ISO 14040: 1997, ISO

14041: 1999, ISO 14042: 2000 and ISO 14043: 2000) have been revised and replaced by two new standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 to consolidate the procedures and methods of LCA (Finkbeiner et al., 2006). Along with these organizations, many other organizations are also involved in the development of LCA. Although LCA 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 International Standards Organisation (ISO) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Activities ISO has developed the Environmental Management Standards ISO 14000 series as a part of the development of the international standard on LCA UNEPs 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 SETAC supports the development of principles and practices for protection, enhancement and management of sustainable environmental quality and ecosystem integrity The EPA is working on the development of LCA methodology under different branches It has been established to promote the uptake of cleaner production and waste minimization activities in Western Australia 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 The center promotes product-orientated environmental strategies in private and public companies by assisting them in implementing life cycle thinking SPOLD is involved in the development of LCA and for the necessary restructuring of company policies toward 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 has a large research program on LCAs and studies the possibility of including industrial hygiene into its LCAs CES is the leading center for sustainable development related research and post-graduate teaching 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-efciency for sustainable consumption 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 Support life cycle thinking in the development of goods and services with reference data and recommended methods. The platform addresses the needs of private businesses and public authorities Supports a project on life cycle assessment of basic food (20002003). It also supports LCA Food database (www.lcafood.dk) and the data can be exported and used for free (Nielsen et al., 2003)

The Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) United States, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production, Australia Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society Inc., LCA Center, Denmark Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD), Belgium IVF, Swedish Institute for Production Engineering Research The Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES), UK LCA Center, Tsukuba, Japan

Global Alliance of LCA Centers (GALAC)

European Commission (European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment) The Directorate for Food Fisheries and Agri-Business, Denmark

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110

tion would enable direct comparison of different case studies. The LCA Center in Tsukuba, Japan has developed a life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME) to quantify the environmental impacts as accurately as possible with a high degree of transparency and to develop a single central index (Eco- index). Fig. 3 shows the structure of LIME2. Studies on LIME also concluded that a single index inevitably involves value judgment (pricing) and has a higher degree of uncertainty (Itsubo and Inaba, 2003, 2007). Moreover, a voluntary study group (food study group) has been formed in Japan to practice LCA on food and to develop eco-efciency for food products by comparing value of certain products and services with their environmental loads (Ozawa and Inaba, 2006; Ozawa et al., 2007). Eco-efciency = (Value that a consumer receives from having meals in a day/LC-CO2 from meals served in a day). The major research organizations working on LCA and their activities are listed in Table 1. 5. Discussion One of the important characteristics of agricultural LCA is the use of multiple functional units. The commonly used functional units are mass of nal products (kg), energy or protein content in food products (kJ), area (ha), unit of livestock. Gross prot and meal are also used. Table 2 shows some LCA studies that used multiple functional units. Although the use of LCA in the agro-food industries is rapidly increasing, there are considerable inconsistencies existing among the studies. The conventional agriculture uses greater amount of fertilizer and pesticides compared to the organic agriculture, but organic agriculture requires more arable land. Genetically modied (GM) agriculture reduces emission from herbicide manufacture, transport and eld operation compared to the conventional agriculture. Therefore, the multiple functional units help in better interpreting and understanding the environmental burden, productivity and farm income. In recent years, bio-energy production (bio-ethanol and biodiesel) had been increasing rapidly. Market adjustments to this increased demand extended beyond the supply of certain raw materials (corn, soybeans, oil seeds, etc.) to this sector, as well as to livestock industries. This rapid expansion affects virtually every aspect of the eld crops sectors, ranging from domestic demand and exports to price and the allocation of land area among crops. As a consequence farm income, government payments and food prices also change. Adjustments in the agricultural sector are already underway as interest grows in renewable sources of energy to reduce environmental pollution and dependency on foreign oil, which might lead to reduced food production and supply. The rush towards bio-fuels is threatening world food production and the lives of billions of people. It is very hard to imagine how the world would grow enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food. The world population continues to grow geometrically, and great pressure is being placed on arable land, water, energy and
Table 2 Application of multiple functional units Authors Haas et al. (2001) Hayashi (2006) Nemecek et al. (2001) Roy et al. (2008) Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005) Issues Intensive, extensive and organic grassland farming A conventional and two fertilization systems Intensive, extensive and low input farming system Different types of meat Pig production systems Functional units 1 ha and 1 ton milk 1 ha and 1 kg tomatoes 1 ha, 1 kg DM and 1 MJ 1 g protein and 1 kJ energy 1 kg pig and 1 ha

biological resources to provide an adequate supply of food while maintaining the ecosystem. Pimentel et al. (1994) reported that more than 99% of the worlds food supply comes from land, while less than 1% is from water resources. Production of cereals, fruits and vegetables, and meat was reported to be 2,085,774, 1,345,056 and 253,688 thousand tons in 2003. As consumption surpasses production, the worlds stocks of stored grain fall relative to each years use. It was also reported that 864 million people were undernourished in 20022004 (FAOSTAT, 2006). In 2003, the estimated per capita arable land was 0.22 ha. Economic and social changes resulting in aggravating poverty or leading to collapse of basic infrastructure and systems, poor governance, inequalities, as well as inappropriate land management and farming methods can contribute to both short- and long-term food shortages. Therefore, strategies for the future must be based on the conservation and careful management of land, water, energy and biological resources needed for food production. Transitory food insecurity and health risk would be the big challenge humankind might have to face in the near future. Since the LCA results are dependent on the choice of functional units, hence the interpretation should be based on the agricultural intensity, economic and social aspect, and food security. Food delivers many health benets beyond energy and nutrition. The purpose of food consumption is not only for the feeling of the stomach, but also to supply the energy required by the body and other health benecial food components. For a healthy body one should consume a balanced diet that quanties the food items and their sources. Hence, for the future LCA studies on food products, there might be a choice of functional unit for studies on food products, that is the balance diet that would help in stabilizing the production, distribution and consumption of foods, hence improve food security and reduce health risk. 6. Conclusions LCA methodologies are very useful to evaluate environmental impacts and food safety of a product or production system. This study revealed that environmental load of a product can be reduced by alternate production, processing, packaging, distribution and consumption patterns. Hence, it improves the food safety and security and might improve international trade. Multiple outputs in many food production systems often make the system complex, and application of LCA on food products requires in-depth research to understand the underlying processes and to predict or measure the variation in emissions. Introduction of land, water, and other approaches in agricultural LCA would provide much more reliable and comprehensive information to environmentally conscious policy makers, producers, and consumers in selecting sustainable products and production processes. A network of information sharing and exchange of experience has expedited the LCA development process. Although LCA methodologies have been improved, further international standardization, i.e., the development of a single index, would enable direct comparison of different case studies and broaden their practical applications. Acknowledgement The authors are indebted to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for the Grants-in-Aid for Scientic Research (No. 18.06581). References
Adisa, A., 1999. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design and optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal 79, 121. 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) 110 Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., 1999. Including environmental aspects in production development: a case study of tomato ketchup. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft UndTechnologie 32, 134141. Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1994. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food products and production systems. Trends in Food Science and Technology 5, 134138. Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1998. Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (34), 277288. Antn, A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Huijbregts, M., 2004a. Comparison of toxicological impacts of integrated and chemical pest management in Mediterranean greenhouses. Chemosphere 54 (8), 12251235. Antn, M.A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I., Muoz, P., 2004b. Most signicant substances of LCA to Mediterranean greenhouse horticulture. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Antn, A., Montero, J.I., Muoz, P., Castells, F., 2005. LCA and tomato production in Mediterranean greenhouses. International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 102112. Audsley, E., Alber, S., Clift, R., Cowell, S., Crettaz, P., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J., Jolliet, O., Kleijn, R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B.P., Zeijts, H., 1997. Harmonization of environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture. Final Report, Concerted Action AIR-CT94-2028, European Commission DG VI Agriculture. Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2003. Environmental assessment of contrasting farming systems in France. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm. Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105, 127144. Bennett, R., Phipps, R., Strange, A., Grey, P., 2004. Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically modied herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2 (4), 272278. Berlin, J., 2002. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. International Dairy Journal 12, 939953. Berlin, J., Sonesson, U., Tillman, A.M., 2007. A life cycle based method to minimize environmental impact on dairy production through product sequencing. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 347356. Boer, D.I.J.M., 2002. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science 80 (12), 6977. Boer, D.I.J.M., Iepema, G., Thomassen, M.A., 2003. Environmental impact assessment at commercial dairy farms. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2005. Alternative scenarios to meet the demands of sustainable waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 79, 115132. Braschkat, J., Patyk, A., Quirin, M., Reinhardt, G.A., 2003. Life cycle assessment of bread production a comparison of eight different scenarios. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Breiling, M., Tatsuo, H., Matsuhashi, R., 1999. Contribution of rice production to Japanese greenhouse gas emissions applying life cycle assessment as a methodology. University of Tokyo, Japan. <www.landscape.tuwien.ac.at/lva/ ss04/261066/docs/v10/lcaricejap-en.pdf>. Brentrup, F., Ksters, 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 fertilizers. European Journal of Agronomy 14 (3), 221233. Brentrup, F., Ksters, 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. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3), 247264. Brentrup, F., Ksters, 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. European Journal of Agronomy 20 (3), 265279. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 1998. Climate change and dietary choices how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy 23 (34), 277293. Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2003. A systematic description and analysis of GHG emissions resulting from Irelands milk production using LCA methodology. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B., 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (1), 4960. Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8 (6), 350356. Collins, A., Flynn, A., Netherwood, A., 2005. Reducing Cardiffs ecological footprint. Main Report. <http://www.walesfootprint.org>. Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA of Danish milk system expansion in practice. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark.

Eide, M.H., 2002. Life cycle assessment of industrial milk production. <http:// www2.lib.chalmers.se/cth/diss/doc/0102/HogaasEideMerete.html>. Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2001. Allocation in ISO14041 a critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (3), 197208. Ekvall, T., Person, L., Ryberg, A., Widheden, J., Frees, N., Nielsen, P.H., Wesnas, M.S., 1998. Life cycle assessment on packaging systems for beer and soft drinks (Environmental Project 399). The Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Denmark. Erzinger, S., Dux, D., Zimmermann, A., Badertscher, F.R., 2003. LCA of animal products from different housing system in Switzerland: relevance of feedstuffs, infrastructure and energy use. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. EUROPEN, 1999. Use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a policy tool in the eld of sustainable packaging waste management. A Discussion Paper EUROPEN, Brussels, Belgium. <http://www.europen.be>. FAOSTAT, 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO Statistical Database. <http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture>. Feitz, A.J., Lundie, S., Dennien, G., Morain, M., Jones, M., 2007. Generation of an industry-specic physico-chemical allocation matrix application in the dairy industry and implications for systems analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12 (2), 109117. Ferro, P., Ribeiro, P., Nhambiu, J., 2003. A comparison between conventional LCA and hybrid EIO-LCA: a Portuguese food packaging case study. <http:// www.lcacenter.org/InLCA-LCM03/Ferrao.pdf>. Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R.B.H., Christiansen, K., Klppel, H.J., 2006. The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (2), 8085. Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., Mylan, J., 2006. Environmental impacts of food production and consumption. A Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Manchester Business School, Defra, London. Frey, S., Barrett, J., 2006. The Environmental Burden of What We Eat: A Report for Scotlands Global Footprint Project, Stockholm Environment Institute. Global Footprint Network, 2008. Advancing the science of sustainability. <http:// www.footprintnetwork.org>. Haas, G., Wetterich, F., Kpke, U., 2001. Comparing intensive, extensied and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83 (12), 4353. Hakansson, S., Gavrilita, P., Bengoa, X., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessment of pork vs. tofu. Life Cycle Assessment 1N1800, Stockholm. Hayashi, K., 2005. Environmental indicators for agricultural management: the problem of integration. Advances in Safety and Reliability: ESREL 2005. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK. pp. 821829. Hayashi, K., 2006. Environmental indicators for agricultural management: integration and decision making. International Journal of Materials & Structural Reliability 4 (2), 115127. Henningsson, S., Hyde, K., Smith, A., Campbell, M., 2004. The value of resource efciency in the food industry: a waste minimization project in East Anglia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (5), 505512. Hirai, Y., Murata, M., Sakai, S., Takatsuki, H., 2000. Life cycle assessment for foodwaste recycling and management. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba, Japan. <http://homepage1. nifty.com/eco/pdf/ecobalanceE.pdf>. Holderbeke, M.V., Sanjun, N., Geerken, T., Vooght, D.D., 2003. The history of bread production: using LCA in the past. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2003. Simplied life cycle assessment of Galician milk production. International Diary Journal 13 (10), 783796. Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2005. Environmental analysis of beer production. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 152162. Hyde, K., Smith, A., Smith, M., Henningsson, S., 2001. The challenge of waste minimisation in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in East Anglia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (1), 5764. ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 1997. ISO 14040 Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006. ISO 14040:2006(E) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2003. A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8 (5), 305. Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of LIME2 towards the establishment of methodology for decision making. In: SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting 2007, SETAC-EU-0249-2007. Janulis, P., 2004. Reduction of energy consumption in biodiesel fuel life cycle. Renewable Energy 29 (6), 861871. Jolliet, O., Mller-Wenk, M., Bare, J., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Itsubo, N., Pea, C., Pennington, D., Potting, J., Rebitzer, G., Stewart, M., Udo de Haes, H., Weidema, B.P., 2004. The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9 (6), 394 404. Jungbluth, N., Frischknecht, R., 2004. Land occupation and transformation in the Swiss life cycle inventory data base ecoinvent 2000. In: Proceedings of the

10

P. Roy et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 90 (2009) 110 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba, Japan. Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2004. Environmental impacts of the Japanese beeffattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated by a life cycle assessment method. Journal of Animal Science 82, 21152122. Ozawa, T., Inaba, A., 2006. Life cycle inventory analysis on meals: efforts of the food study group, the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. In: Proceedings of the Fifth AIST Workshop on LCA for Asia Pacic Region, Tsukuba, Japan. Ozawa, T., Tahara, K., Inaba, A., 2007. Development of a sustainability indicator for agro-food consumption and production. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden. Pimentel, D., Harman, R., Pacenza, M., Pecarsky, J., Pimentel, M., 1994. Natural resources and optimum population. Population and Environment 15, 347369. Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., Morison, J.I.L., 2005. Farm costs and food miles: an assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30 (1), 119. Ramjeawon, T., 2000. Cleaner production in Mauritian cane-sugar factories. Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (6), 503510. Rosing, L., Nielsen, A.M., 2003. When a hole matters the story of the hole in a bread fro French hotdog. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Ross, S., Evans, D., 2003. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plasticbased packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (5), 561571. Roy, P., Shimizu, N., Kimura, T., 2005. Life cycle inventory analysis of rice produced by local processes. Journal of the Japanese Society of Agricultural Machinery 67 (1), 6167. Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2008a. A comparative study on the life cycle of different types of meat. In: Proceedings of the Third LCA Society Research Symposium, Nagoya, Japan. Roy, P., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Orikasa, T., Shiina, T., 2008b. Life cycle inventory analysis of fresh tomato distribution systems in Japan considering the quality aspect. Journal of Food Engineering 86 (2), 225233. Shiina, T., 1998. Optimization of food supply chain to minimize the environmental load. In: Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of the Study Group on Agricultural Structure, Tsukuba, Japan (in Japanese). Shiina, T., Roy, P., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., 2004. Life cycle assessment of food supply chain: a case study for inclusion of quality change aspect. In: Proceedings of the 33rd United States and Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources (UJNR), Hawaii, USA. Sonesson, U., Berlin, J., 2003. Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in Sweden: a scenario study. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (3), 253266. Sonesson, U., Davis, J., 2005. Environmental systems analysis of meals model description and data used for two different meals. SIK-Rapport, Nr. 735 2005, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden. Stanhill, G., 1980. The energy cost of protected cropping: a comparison of six systems of tomato production. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 25, 145154. Takamoto, Y., Mitani, Y., Takashio, M., Itoi, K., Muroyama, K., 2004. Life cycle inventory analysis of a beer production process. Master Brewers Association of Americas 41 (4), 363365. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 1995. Food processing and the environment. Industry and Environment 18 (1), 3. Wagendrop, T., Gulinck, H., Coppin, P., Muys, B., 2006. Land use impact evaluation in life cycle assessment based on ecosystem thermodynamics. Energy 31 (1), 112 125. Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. In: Main Report, Defra Research Project IS0205, Craneld University and Defra. <http://www.defra.go.uk>. Williams, H., Wikstrm, F., Lfgren, M., 2008. A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (7), 853859. Zabaniotou, A., Kassidi, E., 2003. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (5), 549559.

Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm. Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., 2000. Food purchases: impacts from the consumers point of view investigated with a modular LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5 (3), 134142. Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2002. Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from corn grain: I. System expansion. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7 (4), 237243. Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2005. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (6), 426439. Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005. Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (4), 433439. Krozer, Y., 2008. Life cycle costing for innovations in product chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (3), 310321. Ledgard, S.F., Finlayson, J.D., Patterson, M.G., Carran, R.A., Wedderburn, M.E., 2003. Effects of Intensication of dairy farming in New Zealand on whole system resource use efciency and environmental emissions. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference 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 of Cleaner Production 8 (4), 313319. Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of food waste management options. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (3), 275286. Margni, M., Rossier, D., Crettaz, P., Jolliet, O., 2002. Life cycle assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 93 (13), 379392. Mattsson, B., Walln, E., 2003. Environmental LCA of organic potatoes. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Horticultural Congress, ISHS, Acta Horticulturae 691. Mattsson, B., Cederberg, C., Blix, L., 2000. Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (4), 283292. McComas, C., McKinley, D., 2008. Reduction of phosphorus and other pollutants from industrial dischargers using pollution prevention. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (6), 727733. Monte, M.D., Padoano, E., Pozzetto, D., 2005. Alternative coffee packaging: an analysis from a life cycle point of view. Journal of Food Engineering 66 (4), 405 411. Mourad, A.L., Gracia, E.E.C., Vilela, G.B., Zuben, F.V., 2008. Inuence of recycling rate increase of aseptic carton for long-life milk on GWP reduction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (4), 678689. Muoz, P., Antn, A., Montero, J.I., Castells, F., 2004. Using LCA for the improvement of waste management in greenhouse tomato production. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Bygholm, Denmark. Nemecek, T., 2006. Life cycle assessment of food production and consumption: examples from two European projects. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tnikon Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland. Nemecek, T., Frick, C., Dubois, D., Gaillard, G., 2001. Comparing farming systems at crop rotation level by LCA. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden. NIAES (National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences), 2003. Report on the Research Project on Life Cycle Assessment for Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture. NIAES, Ibaraki, Japan. Nielsen, P.H., Nielsen, A.M., Weidema, B.P., Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA food database. <http://www.lcafood.dk>. Nez, Y., Fermoso, J., Garcia, N., Irusta, R., 2005. Comparative life cycle assessment of beef, pork and ostrich meat: a critical point of view. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4 (2), 140151. Nyland, C.A., Modahl, I.S., Raadal, H.L., Hanssen, O.J., 2003. Application of LCA as a decision-making tool for waste management systems. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 16 (online rst). Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Shimada, K., 2002. Life cycle assessment of Japanese beeffattening system: inuence of feeding length on environmental loads. In: