Consequences of the use or absence of life cycle assessment in novel environmental assessment methods and food ecolabels

Andreas Roesch , Mélanie Douziech , Stefan Mann , Jens Lansche , Gérard Gaillard
{"title":"Consequences of the use or absence of life cycle assessment in novel environmental assessment methods and food ecolabels","authors":"Andreas Roesch ,&nbsp;Mélanie Douziech ,&nbsp;Stefan Mann ,&nbsp;Jens Lansche ,&nbsp;Gérard Gaillard","doi":"10.1016/j.clpl.2024.100087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Ecolabels and novel environmental assessment methods are increasingly being used to evaluate the environmental impacts of food items. Some ecolabels build on life cycle assessment, a standardised method for the environmental impact assessment of products over their entire life cycle. The major challenges of life cycle assessment include its complexity in application and result communication, as well as its data intensity. The aim of this study was to compare the methods behind ecolabels to traditional life cycle assessments for evaluating the environmental impacts of food products. To this end, we (1) categorised ecolabels, (2) identified criteria describing the suitability of existing ecolabels in evaluating the environmental impacts of food labels, (3) identified main challenges of the methods underlying ecolabels, and (4) evaluated the challenges based on the criteria to answer the research question. Among the challenges, we found that merging results obtained by different methods, such as life cycle impact assessment and bonus/malus point systems, to build a composite score can risk double counting. Furthermore, certain agricultural production methods are sometimes assumed to be more environmentally friendly than others without evidence. Environmental labels focusing on one or a few selected aspects of sustainability while ignoring other relevant issues can lead to burden shifting and should be avoided. Based on our findings, we conclude that ecolabels help consumers make more sustainable purchasing decisions and create business cases for companies as an incentive to mitigate impacts, while complex research questions should be addressed based on life cycle assessment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100255,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Production Letters","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100087"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Production Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666791624000332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ecolabels and novel environmental assessment methods are increasingly being used to evaluate the environmental impacts of food items. Some ecolabels build on life cycle assessment, a standardised method for the environmental impact assessment of products over their entire life cycle. The major challenges of life cycle assessment include its complexity in application and result communication, as well as its data intensity. The aim of this study was to compare the methods behind ecolabels to traditional life cycle assessments for evaluating the environmental impacts of food products. To this end, we (1) categorised ecolabels, (2) identified criteria describing the suitability of existing ecolabels in evaluating the environmental impacts of food labels, (3) identified main challenges of the methods underlying ecolabels, and (4) evaluated the challenges based on the criteria to answer the research question. Among the challenges, we found that merging results obtained by different methods, such as life cycle impact assessment and bonus/malus point systems, to build a composite score can risk double counting. Furthermore, certain agricultural production methods are sometimes assumed to be more environmentally friendly than others without evidence. Environmental labels focusing on one or a few selected aspects of sustainability while ignoring other relevant issues can lead to burden shifting and should be avoided. Based on our findings, we conclude that ecolabels help consumers make more sustainable purchasing decisions and create business cases for companies as an incentive to mitigate impacts, while complex research questions should be addressed based on life cycle assessment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Resident action in smart waste management during landfill disclosure transition: Insights from Yogyakarta's smart city initiatives The sustainability of agricultural trade: The case of South Africa From insight to action: Possible pathways for sustainable futures in a Canadian university Digital product passports for electric vehicle batteries: Stakeholder requirements for sustainability and circularity Consequences of the use or absence of life cycle assessment in novel environmental assessment methods and food ecolabels
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1