Life cycle thinking is increasingly seen as a key concept for ensuring a transition towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns. As food production systems and consumption patterns are among the leading drivers of impacts on the environment, it is important to assess and improve food-related supply chains as much as possible. Over the years, life cycle assessment has been used extensively to assess agricultural systems and food processing and manufacturing activities, and compare alternatives "from field to fork" and through to food waste management. Notwithstanding the efforts, several methodological aspects of life cycle assessment still need further improvement in order to ensure adequate and robust support for decision making in both business and policy development contexts. This paper discusses the challenges for life cycle assessment arising from the complexity of food systems, and recommends research priorities for both scientific development and improvements in practical implementation. In summary, the intrinsic variability of food production systems requires dedicated modelling approaches, including addressing issues related to: the distinction between technosphere and ecosphere; the most appropriate functional unit; the multi-functionality of biological systems; and the modelling of the emissions and how this links with life cycle impact assessment. Also, data availability and interpretation of the results are two issues requiring further attention, including how to account for consumer behaviour.

No abstract

a b s t r a c tFood loss is a major concern from both environmental and social point of view. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been largely applied to quantify the environmental impact of food and to identify pros and cons of different options for optimisation of food systems management, including the recovery of potential waste occurring along the supply chain. However, within LCA case studies, there is still a general lack of proper accounting of food losses. A discrepancy both in food loss definition and in the approaches adopted to model the environmental burden of food loss has been observed. These aspects can lead to misleading and, sometimes, contrasting results, limiting the reliability of LCA as a decision support tool for assessing food production systems. This article aims, firstly, at providing a preliminary analysis on how the modelling of food loss has been conducted so far in LCA studies. Secondly, it suggests a definition for food loss to be adopted. Finally, the article investigates the consequence of using such definition and it proposes potential paths for the development of a common methodological framework to increase the robustness and comparability of the LCA studies. It discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches adopted to account for food loss along the food supply chain: primary production, transport and storage, food processing, distribution, consumption and end of life. It is also proposed to account separately between avoidable, possibly avoidable and unavoidable food loss by means of specific indicators. Finally, some recommendations for LCA practitioners are provided on how to deal with food loss in LCA studies focused on food products. The most relevant recommendations concern: i) the systematic accounting of food loss generated along the food supply chain; ii) the modelling of waste treatments according to the specific characteristics of food; iii) the sensitivity analysis on the modelling approaches adopted to model multi-functionality; and iv) the need of transparency in describing the modelling of food loss generation and management.

No abstract

Ecosystem quality is an important area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Chemical pollution has adverse impacts on ecosystems on a global scale. To improve methods for assessing ecosystem impacts, the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme established a task force to evaluate the state-of-the-science in modeling chemical exposure of organisms and the resulting ecotoxicological effects for use in LCIA. The outcome of the task force work will be global guidance and harmonization by recommending changes to the existing practice of exposure and effect modeling in ecotoxicity characterization. These changes will reflect the current science and ensure the stability of recommended practice. Recommendations must work within the needs of LCIA in terms of 1) operating on information from any inventory reporting chemical emissions with limited spatiotemporal information, 2) applying best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to ensure unbiased comparison with results for other impact categories, and 3) yielding results that are additive across substances and life cycle stages and that will allow a quantitative expression of damage to the exposed ecosystem. We describe the current framework and discuss research questions identified in a roadmap. Primary research questions relate to the approach toward ecotoxicological effect assessment, the need to clarify the method's scope and interpretation of its results, the need to consider additional environmental compartments and impact pathways, and the relevance of effect metrics other than the currently applied geometric mean of toxicity effect data across species. Because they often dominate ecotoxicity results in LCIA, we give metals a special focus, including consideration of their possible essentiality and changes in environmental bioavailability. We conclude with a summary of key questions along with preliminary recommendations to address them as well as open questions that require additional research efforts. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2955-2971. © 2018 SETAC.