Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(2003)
LCA data on basic food products produced and consumed in Denmark
P. Upham, L. Dendler, M. Bleda (2011)
Carbon labelling of grocery products: public perceptions and potential emissions reductionsJournal of Cleaner Production, 19
Nina Peacock, C. Camillis, D. Pennington, H. Aichinger, A. Parenti, J. Rennaud, A. Raggi, F. Brentrup, B. Sára, U. Schenker, N. Unger, F. Ziegler (2011)
Towards a harmonised framework methodology for the environmental assessment of food and drink productsThe International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16
K. Christiansen, Marianne Wesnæs, B. Weidema (2006)
Consumer demands on Type III environmental declarations
C. Basset-Mens, H. Werf (2005)
Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in FranceAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 105
(2012)
Carbonostics: Brand
M. Vries, I. Boer (2010)
Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessmentsLivestock Science, 128
K. Weitz, J. Todd, M. Curran, Melissa Malkin (1996)
Considerations and a report on the state of practiceThe International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1
D. Hitchens, J. Clausen, K. Fichter (1998)
World Business Council for Sustainable Development - WBCSD
(2012)
CLM LCA Database
(2011)
Carbon emissions of linked slaughtering‐ dismantling on the pork industry
Ulf Schrader, J. Thøgersen (2011)
Putting Sustainable Consumption into PracticeJournal of Consumer Policy, 34
Erwin Schau, A. Fet (2008)
LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarationsThe International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13
S. Vermeulen, B. Campbell, J. Ingram (2012)
Climate Change and Food SystemsAnnual Review of Environment and Resources, 37
Poritosh Roy, D. Nei, Takahiro Orikasa, Qingyi Xu, H. Okadome, N. Nakamura, T. Shiina (2009)
A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products.Journal of Food Engineering, 90
(2006)
Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities
D. Pandey, M. Agrawal, J. Pandey (2011)
Carbon footprint: current methods of estimationEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 178
M. Saarinen, S. Kurppa, Y. Virtanen, Kirsi Usva, J. Mäkelä, A. Nissinen (2012)
Life cycle assessment approach to the impact of home-made, ready-to-eat and school lunches on climate and eutrophicationJournal of Cleaner Production, 28
S. Wiedemann, E. McGahan, S. Grist, T. Grant (2010)
Life cycle assessment of two Australian pork supply chains
(1997)
Towards an environmental infrastructure of the Dutch food industry: exploring the information conversion of five food commodities
Xueqin Zhu, E. Ierland (2004)
Protein Chains and Environmental Pressures: A Comparison of Pork and Novel Protein FoodsEnvironmental Sciences, 1
(2002)
Using LCA methodology to assess the potential environmental impact of intensive beef and pork production [PhD thesis
T. Graedel (1998)
Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment
ABSTRACT This study targeted 9 different pork pâtés, produced with pork from different meat production systems (conventional, organic, and other quality certifications). Besides greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the study also included a detailed analysis of product nutrition. Results show that the GHG emissions range from 200 g CO2e per 100 g of product for conventional pork pâtés and 330 g CO2e per 100 g for organic pork pâtés. Results for organic pâtés are an indirect consequence of the lower productivity of swine feed ingredients. However, if the reference flow unit is nutritional indicator (e.g., calories, protein) instead of 100 g of product, results can be inverted. This fact highlights the difficulty of choosing a functional unit for studies on food products. The function of a food product is to provide quality nutrition, but because there are many different nutritional indicators, life cycle assessment practitioners normally use simple comparisons between amounts. This issue together with the choice of emissions allocation method between pork parts are the main sources of uncertainty. Also, the life cycle of pork production is the main hotspot in the C footprint, accounting for more than 80% of the total emissions. Energy spent for processing and packaging, the only life cycle step that the producer controls directly, accounts for less than 10% of the impact. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:645–651. © 2013 SETAC
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management – Oxford University Press
Published: Oct 1, 2013
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.