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.
在新的环境评价方法和食品生态标签中使用或缺乏生命周期评价的后果
生态标签和新的环境评估方法越来越多地被用于评估食品对环境的影响。一些生态标签建立在生命周期评估的基础上,这是一种对产品整个生命周期的环境影响进行评估的标准化方法。生命周期评估的主要挑战在于其应用和结果交流的复杂性以及数据强度。本研究的目的是比较生态标签背后的方法与传统的生命周期评估方法,以评估食品的环境影响。为此,我们(1)对生态标签进行了分类,(2)确定了描述现有生态标签在评估食品标签环境影响中的适用性的标准,(3)确定了生态标签基础方法的主要挑战,(4)根据回答研究问题的标准评估了这些挑战。在挑战中,我们发现合并不同方法获得的结果,如生命周期影响评估和奖惩计分系统,以建立一个综合得分可能会有重复计算的风险。此外,某些农业生产方法有时在没有证据的情况下被认为比其他方法更有利于环境。环境标签注重可持续性的一个或几个选定的方面,而忽视其他有关问题,可能导致负担转移,应予避免。基于我们的研究结果,我们得出结论,生态标签有助于消费者做出更可持续的购买决策,并为公司创造商业案例,作为减轻影响的激励,而复杂的研究问题应基于生命周期评估来解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信