Improving Sustainability and Circularity of European Food Waste Management with a Life Cycle Approach

In the past years, several research initiatives have been promoted in the area of food waste. Many of these were focused on the identification of key drivers of food wastage and on the quantification of food waste generation. While these initiatives provided fairly accurate information over European food waste generation and management routes, they did not always deliver comprehensive and comparable knowledge on the sustainability of food waste management and on ways to mitigate negative consequences at environmental, economic and social levels. Building on most recent methodological advancement and policy needs, the work presented in this report aims at providing policy/decision makers and waste managers with a life-cycle based framework methodology to quantify the environmental and economic sustainability performance of European food waste management. This methodology can help identify options for improvement of such performance, thus can offer relevant insight to the decision making process. A numerical case study is also developed. This is meant to give an example of simplified application of the proposed methodology to a fictitious European waste management context. The environmental dimension has been evaluated with the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) software EASETECH, while the economic assessment is conducted based on a number of different indicators expressing the costs associated with food waste management. This methodology makes use of multi-objective optimization and Pareto optimality concepts in order to help identify most sustainable management options for food waste, intended as those that minimize environmental and economic impacts. In any case, the proposed methodology is meant to only provide relevant information that can support science-based decision making. The final choice will in fact depend on a number of additional aspects that are beyond the scope of this report and also depends on the preferences of the decision maker.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges

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 foodrelated 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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption

Food supply chains are increasingly associated with environmental and socio-economic impacts. An increasing global population, an evolution in consumers' needs, and changes in consumption models pose serious challenges to the overall sustainability of food production and consumption. Life cycle thinking (LCT) and assessment (LCA) are key elements in identifying more sustainable solutions for global food challenges. In defining solutions to major global challenges, it is fundamentally important to avoid burden shifting amongst supply chain stages and amongst typologies of impacts, and LCA should, therefore, be regarded as a reference method for the assessment of agri-food supply chains. Hence, this special volume has been prepared to present the role of life cycle thinking and life cycle assessment in: i) the identification of hotspots of impacts along food supply chains with a focus on major global challenges; ii) food supply chain optimisation (e.g. productivity increase, food loss reduction, etc.) that delivers sustainable solutions; and iii) assessment of future scenarios arising from both technological improvements and behavioural changes, and under different environmental conditions (e.g. climate change). This special volume consists of a collection of papers from a conference organized within the last Universal Exposition (EXPO2015) “LCA for Feeding the planet and energy for life” in Milan (Italy) in 2015 as well as other contributions that were submitted in the year after the conference that addressed the same key challenges presented at the conference. The papers in the special volume address some of the key challenges for optimizing food-related supply chains by using LCA as a reference method for environmental impact assessment. Beyond specific methodological improvements to better tailor LCA studies to food systems, there is a clear need for the LCA community to “think outside the box”, exploring complementarity with other methods and domains. The concepts and the case studies presented in this special volume demonstrate how cross-fertilization among difference science domains (such as envi- ronmental, technological, social and economic ones) may be key elements of a sustainable “today and tomorrow” for feeding the planet.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Environmental Footprint: Update of Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods – Ecotoxicity freshwater, human toxicity cancer, and non-cancer

In 2011 the EC-JRC published the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook recommendations on the use of Impact Assessment models for use in LCA (EC-JRC 2011a). This created the basis for the Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) recommendations for impact categories and models as per Recommendation 2013/179/EU on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (EC 2013a). This Commission Recommendation is expected to contribute to the Building the Single Market for Green Products (EC 2013b) by supporting a level playing field regarding the measurement of environmental performance of products and organisations. In the context of the PEF, the model retained and recommended for assessing the impact of elementary flows on freshwater aquatic ecosystems and human cancer and non-cancer toxicity was the model USEtox 1.01. However, due to the difficulties encountered in using the model and in interpretation the results, the PEF Technical Advisory Board (TAB) has decided not to include the freshwater aquatic toxicity, human cancer and human non-cancer toxicity impact categories in the list of mandatory impact categories to be used for hotspot analysis and for communication to consumer of to business. The Joint Research Centre (JRC-Ispra) was then mandated by DG environment to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the model and data used to calculate CFs and to come with a proposal to 1) address the issue reported by the Pilots and 2) increase the number of available CFs. Using the physicochemical and toxicity data available in the REACH, EFSA and PPDB database, and building on the feedback collected during a PEF stakeholder workshop organised in February 2018 and on the preliminary outcomes of the UNEP-SETAC Pellston workshop organised in June 2018, JRC has new aquatic toxicity characterisation factors for about 6000 substances and about 3500 for human toxicity non-cancer. The report describes the methodology followed to generate those new characterisation factors. Furthermore, a contribution analysis has been performed comparing the contribution to this new CFs versus old ones used in the PEF pilots.JRC.D.1 - Bio-econom

Energy use in the EU food sector: State of play and opportunities for improvement

The amount of energy necessary to cultivate, process, pack and bring the food to European citizens tables accounts for the 17 % of the EU's gross energy consumption, equivalent to about 26 % of the EU's final energy consumption in 2013. Challenges and solutions for decreasing energy consumption and increasing the use of renewable energy in the European food sector are presented and discussed.JRC.F.7-Renewables and Energy Efficienc

Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators

In recent years, footprint indicators have emerged as a popular mode of reporting environmental performance. The prospect is that these simplified metrics will guide investors, businesses, public sector policymakers and even consumers of everyday goods and services in making decisions which lead to better environmental outcomes. However, without a common “DNA”, the ever expanding lexicon of footprints lacks coherence and may even report contradictory results for the same subject matter.(1) The danger is that this will ultimately lead to policy confusion and general mistrust of all environmental disclosures. Footprints are especially interesting metrics because they seek to express the environmental performance of products and organizations from a life cycle perspective. The life cycle perspective is important to avoid misleading claims based only on a selected life cycle stage. For example, the water used to manufacture beverages may be important, but if a beverage includes sugar, irrigation water used to cultivate sugar cane could be a greater concern. The focus on environmental performance distinguishes footprints from technical efficiency measures, such as energy use efficiency or water use efficiency, which typically only make sense when applied to a single life cycle stage as they lack local environmental context. However, unlike technical efficiency, which can usually be accurately measured and verified, footprint indicators, with their wider view of environmental performance, are usually calculated using models which can differ in scope, complexity and model parameter settings. Despite the noble intention of using footprints to evaluate and report environmental performance, the potential inconsistency between different approaches acts as a deterrent to use in many public policymaking and business contexts and can lead to confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace