As the demand for sustainable food solutions continues to grow, life cycle assessments (LCAs) have become a critical tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of emerging food products. These assessments offer valuable insights into how innovations in food production can contribute to reducing the environmental footprint of the global food system - one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, water use and land degradation. This article explores the world of food from an environmental sustainability perspective, highlighting the current limitations and opportunities in LCA methodologies and strategies that will enable more accurate assessments of the environmental impact of the next generation of sustainable food products.
Reducing the environmental impacts of the food system is crucial, and LCAs are widely used to evaluate the environmental impacts of products throughout their life span, from production to disposal. For alternative meats, LCAs typically reveal significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, water use and land use compared to conventional meat. Several studies highlight how plant-based foods and cultivated meats have a lower environmental footprint than traditional animal-based products.
- A study by the University of Michigan found that Beyond Meat’s burger uses 99% less water, 93% less land and generates 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a typical beef burger (Helle & Keoleian, 2018)
- Research from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Heidelberg, Germany reports that plant-based meat alternatives have 50% lower carbon footprint than chicken breast per 100g of product (Detzel, et al., 2021).
- Cultured meats have also been shown to have lower carbon emissions compared to conventionally produced beef by an average of 67% (Lynch & Pierehumbert, 2019)
Figure 1: Differences in the data availability for conventional versus novel products.
Comparing novel products to established competitors presents unique challenges when conducting LCAs. Newly developed products lack historical production data, making it difficult to model their environmental impacts accurately. Additionally, their manufacturing processes may not yet be fully optimized, raising an important question: what are we comparing? Let’s explore an example to highlight these challenges and illustrate how they can affect the LCA process.
A hypothetical product, iPlant, illustrates these challenges. IPlant is a plant-based meat substitute that has been produced at a pilot plant for three months. The company behind iPlant hired a team to conduct an LCA comparing its environmental impact to that of conventional meat. While the comparison may seem straightforward, differences in production processes, feedstock, energy supply and end-of-life scenarios can create data gaps.
Using pilot plant data (see Figure 2) for an initial LCA can offer valuable insights and help identify environmental impact hot spots in production and ingredients, driving improvements in product development. However, this initial LCA may not be detailed enough to fully compare the novel plant product with conventional meat. Modeling products that are still in development presents challenges, as advanced simulations and calculations are needed to estimate environmental impacts. New products often lack primary data and secondary data, and assumptions are needed, introducing uncertainties that must be carefully managed.
Advanced engineering, upscaling methods and scenario analysis are commonly used to fill data gaps and compare products at different scales. Parvatker & Eckelman (2019) outlined eight upscaling methods to estimate the environmental impacts of novel products, known as Prospective LCAs, or ex-ante assessment.
Figure 2: Hierarchy of methods to generate LCI data in an ex-ante context, adapted from Parvatker and Eckelman (2019), van der Giesen et al. (2020) in Balsvik (2021).
Other Considerations
If the LCA is to consider temporal boundaries of the products when comparing the future manufacturing of plant-based foods with meat products, the LCA will need to forecast the future of the meat products as well. For example, considering different levels of renewable energy or heat sources is key to maintaining consistency in comparisons.
New products introduce new supply chains and opportunities for synergies. A comprehensive LCA evaluates potential co-products, like biomass, which may be considered waste initially, but have value as the supply chain matures.
Finally, considering alternative end-of-life options and modeling different scenarios ensures a complete comparison of novel and traditional meat products.
Moving Forward
Comparative LCAs can be powerful for assessing the environmental impacts of both traditional and novel food products. While data gaps and uncertainties can limit their accuracy, the strategies discussed can help address these challenges. Transparency in assumptions ensures credibility, enabling companies to make informed decisions and support sustainability claims with solid scientific evidence.
WSP recently supported the XPRIZE Feed the Next Billion competition by evaluating the environmental impacts of novel food products developed by the participating teams. During the Finals Round of the competition, which wrapped in the fall 2024, WSP conducted screening-level LCAs to assess sustainability. This article is the second of a three-part series exploring the intersection of food and environmental sustainability. As an official testing partner of XPRIZE Feed the Next Billion, WSP is part of the multi-year, $15 million competition that incentivizes teams to create chicken and fish alternatives that replicate or outperform conventional versions in terms of accessibility, sustainability, animal welfare, nutrition, taste and texture.
References
- Detzel, A., Kruger, M., Busch, M., Banco-Gutierrez, I., Varela, C., Manners, R., Zannini, E. (2021). Life cycle assessment of animal-based foods and plant-based protein-rich alternatives: an environmental perspective. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11417
- Helle, M., & Keoleian, G. (2018). Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A detailed comparison between a plant-based and an animal-based protein source.
- Lynch, J., & Pierehumbert, R. (2019). Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.0000
- Parvatker, A. G., & Eckelman, M. J. (2019). Comparative Evaluation of Chemical Life Cycle Inventory Generation Methods and Implications for Life Cycle Assessment Results. Retrieved from ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 7, 350-567.
