In the Chinese Food Life Cycle Assessment Database (CFLCAD), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGE) for 80 food items, Water Use (WU) for 93 food items and Land Use (LU) for 50 food items are collected through a literature review. The CFLCAD applies conversion factors for the edible portion of food, food loss ratio and processing, storage, packaging, transportation, and food preparation stages to estimate the environmental footprints of food from production to consumption. Similar food groups and recipes are used to match those food items without LCA value in the Chinese food composition table, resulting in a total of 17 food groups in the database. Date: 2022-01-11 Date Submitted: 2022-01-12

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. LCA describes the life cycle as consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system extending from the acquisition of raw materials through materials processing, technology manufacturing/construction, technology use/maintenance/upgrade, and the technology retirement. LCA also provides a framework for understanding economic and social impacts. In an LCA, data are collected at the unit process level, intended to represent a single industrial activity, in this case the food and agriculture industry. Each single industrial activity (a) produces product and sometimes co-products; (b) uses resources from the environment; (c) uses resources from other unit processes in the technosphere; and (d) generates emissions to the environment. In an LCA, the inventory analysis combines unit process data for the life cycle and the impact assessment estimates the impact associated with activities and flows to and from the environment for the inventory. Datasets have been developed for the LCA Commons in response to a national need for data representing US operations. The LCA Commons database is an open access database developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Library (NAL) for use in LCAs to support policy assessment, technology implementation decision-making, and publicly disclosed comparative product or technology assertions. K7612-17: Photo by Scott Bauer; http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/sep97/k7612-17.htm Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: LCA Commons website. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.lcacommons.gov/

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) software market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing regulatory pressures for environmental sustainability and growing consumer demand for eco-friendly products. The market, estimated at $250 million in 2025, is projected to exhibit a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 12% from 2025 to 2033, reaching approximately $700 million by 2033. This expansion is fueled by several key factors. Firstly, stringent environmental regulations across various industries are mandating LCA integration into product development and supply chain management. Secondly, the rise of sustainable business practices and corporate social responsibility initiatives encourages companies to adopt LCA software for transparency and improved environmental performance. Finally, technological advancements, such as cloud-based solutions and improved data integration capabilities, are simplifying LCA processes and expanding accessibility. The market is segmented based on software type (cloud-based vs. on-premise), industry application (manufacturing, food & beverage, etc.), and geography. Key players such as One Click LCA, Sphera Solutions, and iPoint-systems are driving innovation and market competition through the development of advanced features and strategic partnerships. This growth trajectory is, however, subject to certain restraints. High implementation costs and the need for specialized expertise can present barriers to entry for smaller businesses. Furthermore, data availability and reliability remain challenges in conducting comprehensive LCAs, and the integration of LCA software with existing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems requires ongoing effort. Despite these challenges, the long-term outlook for the LCA software market remains highly positive, driven by the increasing focus on environmental sustainability across the global economy. The market's maturation will likely see increased consolidation and the emergence of niche players specializing in specific industry applications, further fueling growth and specialization. A consistent upward trend is expected, influenced by ongoing technological advancements and the intensifying global demand for more sustainable practices.

Full Excel model providing life-cycle impacts of food and drink products. Contains all original inventory data and mid-point impact data, remodelling assumptions, and final standardised results. Requires Microsoft Excel 2007 or later to use.

Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) were performed to assess the environmental performance of 4 new fermented food products that mix animal (milk) and plant (pea) protein sources in different ratios (100% Pea, 75% Pea-25% Milk, 50% Pea-50% Milk, 25% Pea-75% Milk). The system perimeter goes from the agricultural production of the ingredients to the ready-to-eat products. Environmental impact results were obtained for 1 kg of ready-to-eat product, for all the environmental indicators calculated by the EF 3.0 Method on the SimaPro software. Life cycle inventories included the different flows in the LCA (raw materials, energy, water, cleaning products, packaging, transport, wastes). Foreground data have been acquired on the manufacturing site, background data were taken from the Ecoinvent 3.6 database. The dataset contains details on products, processes, equipment, infrastructures, mass and energy flows, Life Cycle Inventories (LCI) and Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results.

The household is an important locus of decision-making regarding food, energy, and water (FEW) consumption. Changes in household FEW consumption behaviors can lead to significant reductions in environmental impacts, but it can be difficult for consumers to compare the relative impacts of their consumption quantitatively, or to recognize the indirect impacts of their household consumption patterns. We describe two novel tools designed to address this problem: A hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) framework to translate household consumption of food, energy, and water into key environmental impacts including greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and water use; and a novel software application called HomeTracker that implements the framework by collecting household FEW data and providing environmental impact feedback to households. We explore the question: How can a life cycle assessment-based software application facilitate collection and translation of household consumption data to meaningful environmental impact metrics? A case study in Lake County, Illinois is presented to illustrate use of the HomeTracker application. Output data describing environmental impacts attributable to household FEW consumption in the study area are shown in order to illustrate key features and trends observed in the case study population. The framework and its associated output data can be used to support experimental research at the household scale, allowing for examination of what users purchase and consume over an extended period of time as well as increased understanding of household behavior trends and environmental impacts, and as future work.

Purpose: The need to assess the sustainability attributes of the United States beef industry is underscored by its importance to food security locally and globally. A life cycle assessment (LCA) of the US beef value chain was conducted to develop baseline information on the environmental impacts of the industry including metrics of the cradle-to-farm gate (feed production, cow-calf, and feedlot operations) and post-farm gate (packing, case-ready, retail, restaurant, and consumer) segments. Methods: Cattle production (cradle-to-farm gate) data were obtained using the integrated farm system model (IFSM) supported with production data from the Roman L. Hruska US Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC). Primary data for the packing and case-ready phases were obtained from packers that jointly processed nearly 60% of US beef while retail and restaurant primary data represented 8 and 6%, respectively, of each sector. Consumer data were obtained from public databases and literature. The functional unit or consumer benefit (CB) was 1 kg of consumed, boneless, edible beef. The relative environmental impacts of processes along the full beef value chain were assessed using a third party validated BASF Corporation Eco-Efficiency Analysis methodology. Results and discussion: Value chain LCA results indicated that the feed and cattle production phases were the largest contributors to most environmental impact categories. Impact metrics included water emissions (7005 L diluted water eq/CB), cumulative energy demand (1110 MJ/CB), and land use (47.4 m2a eq/CB). Air emissions were acidification potential (726 g SO2 eq/CB), photochemical ozone creation potential (146.5 g C2H4 eq/CB), global warming potential (48.4 kg CO2 eq/CB), and ozone depletion potential (1686 μg CFC11 eq/CB). The remaining metrics calculated were abiotic depletion potential (10.3 mg Ag eq/CB), consumptive water use (2558 L eq/CB), and solid waste (369 g municipal waste eq/CB). Of the relative points adding up to 1 for each impact category, the feed phase contributed 0.93 to the human toxicity potential. Conclusions: This LCA is the first of its kind for beef and has been third party verified in accordance with ISO 14040:2006a and 14044:2006b and 14045:2012 standards. An expanded nationwide study of beef cattle production is now being performed with region-specific cattle production data aimed at identifying region-level benchmarks and opportunities for further improvement in US beef sustainability. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Electronic Supplementary Material ESM 1 - Tables S1 to S11 (docx). File Name: Web Page, url: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art:10.1007/s11367-018-1464-6/MediaObjects/11367_2018_1464_MOESM1_ESM.docx Direct download, docx. Table S1: Feed phase input data (resource use and emissions) from USMARC and IFSM simulations used in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and sources of their life-cycle inventories (LCI). Table S2: Cattle phase input data (resource use and emissions) from USMARC and IFSM simulations in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and the sources of their respective life-cycle inventories (LCI). Table S3: Packing and case-ready phases input data (resource use and emissions) used in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and the sources of their respective life-cycle inventories (LCI). Allocation factor of case-ready (i.e. % packaged at case ready) = 0.63. Table S4: Retail and consumer phases input data (resource use and emissions) used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and their respective life-cycle inventory (LCI) sources. Allocation factor for retail and consumer (i.e. at-home consumption portion of total consumption sold through retail) = 0.47. Table S5: Restaurant phase input data (resource use and emissions) used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and their respective life-cycle inventory (LCI) sources. Allocation factor (i.e. restaurant fraction of total beef consumption) = 0.53. Table S6: Essential raw materials considered in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and respective weighting factors used for the determination of their Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP). Table S7: Scoring system for toxic properties described by H-phrases for U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment (Landsiedel and Saling (2002) before our modification). Table S8: Land occupation and transformation weighting factors for U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment based on Ecosystem Damage Potentials (EDPs) from the Ecoinvent 2.2 life cycle inventory database (Frischknecht et al. 2005). Table S9: Air emissions and their respective weighting (equivalence) factors used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment. Table S10: Solid waste relative disposal costs used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment (Klein 2011). Table S11: Water emissions categories and their respective weighting factors based on regional regulatory limits used in the U.S. beef life cycle assessment.

Supplementary Data 2. Ranking of impacts by impact category and methods in the ten most commonly served commodities in NSLP. This table is provided as an excel file. To construct this table, we first identified the ten most commonly served commodities in the NSLP. We then assessed the environmental impacts of these commodities using various combinations of impact assessment methods and databases. A list of the methods and database combinations is available below as SI Table 7. We then ranked the impacts of each commodity from 1 to 10 within each of the methods/database combinations. For example, using the World Food LCA Database version 3.5 and Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) impact assessment methods in Simapro, we assessed the climate impacts of producing 1 kg of apples and 1 kg of beef. Rankings were determined for each food within a given method/database combination. For this example, the rank of apple for climate impact was 2 and the rank of beef was 10. Rankings were compared using the standard deviation of rankings for each commodity and across impact categories.

In the SHARP-ID, environmental impact assessment was based on attributional life cycle analyses using environmental indicators greenhouse gas emission (GHGE) and land use (LU). Life cycle inventory data of 182 primary products were combined with data on production, trade and transport, and adjusted for consumption amount using conversions factors for production, edible portion, cooking losses and gains, and for food losses and waste in order to derive estimates of GHGE and LU for the foods as eaten. Towards a public database for environmental sustainability SHARP-ID Towards a public database for environmental sustainability

Lactic acid bacteria are widely used in the food and pharmaceutical industries to produce fermented foods and probiotics. However, very little is known about the environmental impacts of their production processes. This dataset provides appropriate data related to the environmental assessment by Life Cycle Assessment of thirty scenarios of production processes to produce lactic acid bacteria concentrates. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) foreground data were collected during experiments performed in 2021 in Biosearch Life, a Kerry Group company (Granada, Spain). They were manually measured, registered with sensors (tap water, steam, compressed air, and electricity consumption), or found in the technical and scientific literature. Storage experiments and biological activity measurements were performed during 2021 and 2022 in AgroParisTech (Thiverval-Grignon, France). Background data came from the database Ecoinvent 3.6, completed by Agribalyse 3.0. LCI of the FOS protectants' production was obtained from another data paper. Life Cycle Impact Assessments (LCIA) were computed with SimaPro v9.1.0.11 software (Pré consultant) with the "EF 3.0 Method (adapted) V1.00 / EF 3.0 normalization and weighting set" to obtain the midpoint indicators. The dataset contains all the inventory data (mass and energy flows, equipment) and the biological activity data. The Life Cycle Inventory data could be reused by scientists for future LCAs. The environmental impacts computed by Life Cycle Assessment could be reused by scientists or the food industry for eco-design or environmental labelling.

Life-cycle assessments (LCA) were conducted for 80 different pizzas representative of the French retail market to study the possible differences in environmental impact between various items belonging to the same food product category. The LCAs were conducted using the "EF 3.0 Method (adapted) V1.00 / EF 3.0 normalization and weighting set" on SimaPro software. Most of the data used were taken from the AGRIBALYSE 3.0 and EcoInvent 3.6 databases. The dataset contains details on products, life-cycle inventories (LCI) and LCIA results.

The goal of this research was to analyze the energy and environmental impact of KCL and K2SO4 production and provide recommendations for enhancing energy efficiency and environmental practices. Data was collected through face-to-face interviews at two potash plants and the CML methodology was employed to assess impact categories. Inventory data for production inputs were sourced from the Ecoinvent, BUWAL 250, and LCA Food DK databases within the Simapro 8.03.14 software. The results showed that the production of one ton of K2O as KCL and K2SO4, required 7080.82 and 15691.5 MJ, respectively. Electricity accounted for 52.96% of energy input in KCL production, whereas fuel oil constituted 38.39% in K2SO4 production. Energy ratios, energy productivity and specific energy for K2SO4 was 0.40, 0.06 kgMJ-1, and 15.6 MJkg-1, while corresponding indices for KCL were 0.90, 0.14 kgMJ-1 and 7.08 MJkg-1, respectively. In KCL production, electricity had eight impact categories, while the use of KCL as a raw material in K2SO4 production had significant effects on seven impact categories. Considering the vast and unoccupied space available in Iran’s great desert, where the KCL plant is situated, the installation of a photovoltaic power station near the plant could greatly enhance energy efficiency and reduce emissions.