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

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

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.

Contents
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.
6.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* 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

2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
8
8
8
8

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).

Goal and
scope
definition
Inventory
analysis

Interpretation

Life cycle assessment framework

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

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

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-

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

2.5

Relative LCI

2.0

1.5

1.0

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

0.5

0.0
0

20

40

60

80

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

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

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

Activities

International Standards Organisation (ISO)

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

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

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

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)

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

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.

Table 2
Application of multiple functional units
Authors

Issues

Functional units

Haas et al. (2001)

Intensive, extensive and organic

grassland farming
A conventional and two fertilization
systems
Intensive, extensive and low input
farming system
Different types of meat

1 ha and 1 ton milk

Hayashi (2006)
Nemecek et al.
(2001)
Roy et al. (2008)
Basset-Mens and
van der Werf
(2005)

Pig production systems

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

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

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:

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.