Search

Purpose: According to ISO norm 14044, life cycle assessment (LCA) calculations should be based on a functional unit (FU) that is representative of a product's function. Despite this, LCAs of food products rarely deviate from a mass-based FU. This study aimed to evaluate how the use of different nutritional FUs might influence analyses of the environmental performance of food products within the same food category. Methods: Different FUs were used to conduct LCAs of two sets of food products: 80 industrial pizzas and 44 artisanal cheeses. For both food categories, we investigated FUs based on energy content, protein content, and a French nutritional index (SAIN). For pizza, we assessed additional FUs based on portion size, fiber content, and a combination of protein and fiber content; for cheese, we also calculated FUs for calcium content and a combination of protein and calcium content. LCAs were performed using SimaPro software. We then examined how the relative environmental performance (ranking) of the 80 pizzas and the 44 cheeses changed depending on the FU used for analysis. Results and discussion: The use of a FU based on a particular nutrient always improved the apparent environmental performance of products that were rich in that nutrient. This phenomenon was particularly pronounced in cases where a mass-based FU revealed only small variation in environmental impacts between products, when products were rich in the nutrients analyzed by the FU, and when there was a range in the nutrient content of products. Therefore, different nutritional FUs yielded different results depending on the product and the environmental indicator studied, and proper interpretation also required critical analysis of the reference flows involved. Finally, we found that products from the same category were not necessarily nutritionally similar, and that nutritional and environmental dimensions could be contradictory, meaning that both should be evaluated together. Conclusions: Using nutritional FU can influence greatly the results when the goal is to compare different food products from the same category. Each of the nutritional FU used in this study brings out different information and could therefore be used complementary in order to get a deeper understanding of the environmental performance of the products. However, different FUs can yield contradictory results, potentially complicating interpretation by stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facing the ecological and social crisis that the agrifood systems cross, a profound transformation of food systems is required, necessitating systemic and sustainable innovations. Sustainability assessments are generally performed to identify and/or validate the improvement in sustainability conferred by a designed artifact relative to the current or standard situation. However, they can have many other benefits in the design process. Here, we review the place, role, and conditions of use of sustainability assessment in innovation design processes in agrifood systems. By cross-referencing published findings and our own experience, we formalize a design process highlighting the place of sustainability assessment, whether design is intended for the creation of an agricultural or food artifact. We identify three types of assessment: initial diagnosis, screening between solutions at the ideation stage, and evaluation at the prototyping and development stages. We discuss ways of performing each of these assessments and highlight general key points about sustainability assessment. A first set of key points relate to criteria and indicators, a second set to the role of stakeholders, a third one to the adaptive nature of the assessment, and the last one to the uncertainty consideration. These key points provide guidance for efficient assessment in the design of innovations to increase the sustainability of agrifood systems. Thus, we demonstrate that the design process of innovations for sustainable agrifood systems requires (1) to formalize the place and mode of assessment, (2) to make use of relevant sustainability criteria and indicators, (3) to reinforce participatory practices, and (4) to adapt the assessment to the context of the designed artifact, to facilitate choices between imperfect solutions. Such an approach aims to promote innovations that meet the expectations of the system's direct stakeholders, but also integrate the needs of invisible actors such as the environment or the well-being of populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]