Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Review
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
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
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-
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.
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
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
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
0.5
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
Loss (%)
Fig. 2. Relationship between relative LCI and loss in food supply chain (Shiina,
1998).
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
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)
Table 2
Application of multiple functional units
Authors
Issues
Functional units
Hayashi (2006)
Nemecek et al.
(2001)
Roy et al. (2008)
Basset-Mens and
van der Werf
(2005)
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>.
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