Harmonisation of the life cycle assessment of food products in Finland : Review of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) from a comparability perspective

The main goal of the Finnish LCAFoodPrint is to create a national Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodological guideline for food products and particularly, to be used in public external communication to consumers and other stakeholders. A major motivation is to significantly enhance the consistency and comparability of LCA results, which is currently limited due to varied methods across different products and categories. To achieve this, the study systematically reviews existing LCA approaches and international standards, giving main focus on the European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method and the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs). Each guideline was examined for methodological consistency and differences in areas such as functional unit definition, system boundaries, allocation methods, and emission modelling. While the PEF method was designed for uniform and comparable assessments within product groups, its applicability in comparisons across product categories remains uncertain. Thus, attention was paid to the comparability of LCA results within and across product groups. In this report evaluation is made on whether the PEF method and the PEFCRs support reliable comparisons also across product categories and to identify deviations in methods causing discrepancy. Aim of this comparison is to form the basis for the development of a solid, transparent, and harmonized national LCA guideline for use in both regulatory frameworks and in external communication. The review found that while the PEF method ensures consistency within product groups, significant methodological differences across PEFCRs could impair full comparability between food products, across product categories. Well-acknowledged issue of mass-based functional units was seen as one of the largest challenges, as they do not account for nutritional value which can be very different across food categories. System boundaries generally extended from cradle to grave, but differences exist in how the use stage is handled. Allocation methods varied widely — economic, mass-based, and biophysical allocations were found to be used mainly consistently, yet severe differences were also noticed, which would hamper comparisons. Crop production emissions were typically modelled with IPCC Tier 1 methods, while livestock modelling was more variable. Use stage modelling and land use changes were inconsistently addressed, which were seen as potentially leading to variation in interpretation. Waste treatment and end-of-life modelling were generally harmonized and use the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF), though also in this case interpretation of its use was found varying. Data quality requirements were mostly aligned with PEF, but the extent and methods for collecting primary data differed, affecting transparency and comparability. The PEF method provides a solid basis for harmonizing food LCAs, but it was found as not fully sufficient for comparing different food products across categories due to inconsistencies found across PEFCRs. Key areas needing harmonization included functional unit definitions, allocation principles, treatment of the use phase, land use changes and modelling requirements and used Tiers. Although internal comparability within product groups is well supported, cross-category comparison remains limited. To support transparent communication of environmental information and informed decision-making, a national guideline food LCA guideline need to address these inconsistencies.