LCA of 22 frozen food

products and their

alternatives
Short Summary Report
About PRé
For more than thirty years PRé has been at the forefront of life cycle thinking and has built on its
knowledge and experience in sustainability metrics and impact assessments to provide state of
the art methods, consulting services and software tools. Internationally, leading organizations
work with PRé to integrate sustainability into their product development procedures in order to
create business growth and business value. PRé has an office in the Netherlands and a global
partner network to support large international or multi-client projects.

Get in touch with us

Do you have a sustainability challenge for us? We would be happy to discuss it together.

PRé Sustainability B.V.

Stationsplein 121 T +31 33 455 50 22
3818 LE Amersfoort E [email protected]
The Netherlands W pre-sustainability.com

PRé Sustainability is a trademark, held by © PRé Sustainability B.V., Amersfoort, The Netherlands. All rights reserved. All
trademarks acknowledged. PRé Sustainability B.V. is fully and privately owned by the management and registered with
the Dutch Chamber of Commerce (Amersfoort) under number 32099599.

Short summary LCA of 22 frozen food products and their alternatives 2

Commissioned by: Nomad Foods
Oliver Spring, Group Sustainability Manager
Georgios Tetradis-Mairis, Head of R&D Futures

Prepared by: PRé Sustainability B.V.

Ellen Meijer, Senior Consultant
Laura Schumacher, Expert
Ellie Williams, Consultant
Tommie Ponsioen, Analyst

Reviewed by: Please note that the review applies to the full version of the report, of
which this summary is a highly shortened version.
Prof. Dr. Matthias Finkbeiner, TU Berlin (panel chair)
Prof. Dr. Greg Thoma, University of Arkansas
Kai Robertson, Independent Senior Corporate Sustainability Advisor
(Lead Advisor Food Loss & Waste Protocol)

This report is a highly shortened version of the full ISO report that was reviewed by the review
panel.

Date: 25 January 2023

Version: 1.0

Short summary LCA of 22 frozen food products and their alternatives 3

Goals of the study
Nomad Foods, Europe’s leading frozen food company, is interested in learning more about the
potential trade-offs between a frozen food supply chain and one using alternative preservation
methods. For example, while a frozen supply chain requires energy for both the initial freezing
and frozen storage during the life cycle, there are possible benefits in terms of food preservation,
such as less food waste due to the low-perishable nature of frozen food. This study examines
these potential trade-offs to determine if there are significant differences in the environmental
impact between frozen and non-frozen food products (goal 1).
To analyse this, the environmental impact of 22 frozen food products is compared to their
alternatives (equivalent products using alternative preservation methods, such as fresh products,
jars and cans). The products selected are from the product categories: fish, plant-based proteins
and vegetables. To ensure that differences in environmental impact between the frozen food
product and its alternative stem solely from the preservation method and not from other factors,
the ingredient composition, manufacturing efficiencies, ingredient and product distribution routes,
and location of consumption remain constant. More specifically, the most notable differences
between the frozen products and their alternatives will be inherent differences in the product
manufacturing, temperature of transport vehicles, the storage temperatures and technologies,
and food loss and waste.
In parallel, this study also reports the carbon footprint (climate change impact of the life cycle) of
the 22 Nomad Foods frozen products for sale and consumption in one specific country per
product (goal 2).
The study was executed to conform to ISO 14040/44: 2006 and has been externally reviewed by an
independent review panel.

Scope of the study

To calculate the environmental impact of the 22 products and their alternatives, Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) was used. Life Cycle Assessment measures the potential impacts on the
environment associated with the life cycle of a product, process, or service. It typically includes
every part of the life cycle, the so-called life cycle stages. The scope of this study is cradle to grave,
meaning it includes all life cycle stages, from the farming and wild capture of raw ingredients to
consumed product, including end-of-life of the package and any non-consumed food product.

Figure 1 - Life cycle stages of Nomad Foods products

Short summary LCA of 22 frozen food products and their alternatives 4

Data from 2019 was collected from Nomad Foods and its suppliers for processes which are under
Nomad Foods’ direct or operational control. Data was also collected for some upstream processes
which were anticipated to have a considerable contribution (e.g. wild capture of fish) and from
retailers for food loss and waste percentages. Data from Nomad Foods is linked to Life Cycle
Inventory (LCI) databases which contain, for example, the emissions and inputs for 1 kWh of solar
electricity. Collected data is supplemented with data from relevant literature and the Product
Environmental Footprint (PEF) 1 method where appropriate.

For the comparison of the potential environmental impact of the 22 frozen food products with
their alternatives (goal 1), the unit of analysis (i.e. the functional unit) was 3 portions of consumed
product (since an average OECD household consists of 2.6 people). For the calculation of the
carbon footprint of the 22 frozen products (goal 2), a functional unit of 1 kg of consumed product
was used.
The main environmental issue (impact category) assessed in this study is global warming potential
(i.e. the carbon footprint) which measures the potential impact on climate change. While they are
not used for detailed analysis, the full range of other impact categories from the EF 3.0 impact
assessment method of the PEF are also calculated to identify potential trade-offs. An example of a
trade-off is that one product has a lower carbon footprint, but higher impact on water scarcity
than the other.
To determine the importance and sensitivity of the various modelling approaches used and
assumptions made, a series of sensitivity analyses were performed on storage time, retail and
consumer electricity source, consumer preparation type and packaging size of the alternative
product.

Results

Main differences between frozen versus other preservation methods

The results and corresponding interpretation steps provided insights into the differences in
carbon footprint between the frozen and non-frozen food product. In general, from this study, it
can be concluded that there are four main factors that determine whether the carbon footprint of
a frozen product is higher or lower than that of an alternative, based on the scope of this study.
These factors are not necessarily main contributors to the impact, but they are the main sources
of differences between the frozen and non-frozen products. They are as follows:

1. The electricity mix used by retail and consumer. An energy mix with a lower carbon footprint
per kWh is beneficial for frozen products. The products included in this study use the average
country electricity mix in the country of consumption. Over time, these mixes are expected to
move in the direction of lower carbon footprint, thereby moving in favour of the frozen
product.

2. The number of days the consumer keeps the frozen product in their freezer. A shorter freezer
storage time is beneficial for the carbon footprint of frozen products.

1
This method is developed by the European Commission to standardize LCA’s of products and allow for fair comparison
between products.

Short summary LCA of 22 frozen food products and their alternatives 5

 In this study, a frozen storage time of 30 days is used based on default values of the PEF
method [1]. If the carbon footprint of electricity mixes is lower, the sensitivity to the frozen
storage days is less significant.

3. The amount of food loss and waste at retail and consumer. If the food loss and waste of the
alternative product is higher than that of the frozen product, whether this is due to high
perishability, low turnover or other reasons, the carbon footprint of the frozen product is
more likely to be favourable. Since the amount of food loss and waste can influence the
outcomes of the comparison, data on this should be specific to the product and the
preservation method.
4. The inherent carbon footprint of the product itself. If the production of the product (i.e. the
ingredients cultivation and manufacturing) has a higher carbon footprint, the effect of wasting
this product will also be higher. So, a change in the food loss and waste percentage of
products with a relatively high production (at the point of leaving the factory) carbon footprint
will have a larger absolute effect than the same change for a product with a relatively low
production carbon footprint. Since the food loss and waste percentages are in general lower
for frozen food products, the frozen food product is more likely to have a lower carbon
footprint than its alternative if the inherent carbon footprint of the product is high.

Carbon footprint of frozen products and their alternatives

Figure 2 shows the numerical carbon footprint of the Nomad Foods frozen products under study,
compared to the alternative product modelled.

Figure 2 - Comparison of carbon footprint of the frozen product and its alternative

Short summary LCA of 22 frozen food products and their alternatives 6

Relative impact of life cycle stages to the carbon footprint
The relative contribution of life cycle stages to the carbon footprint varies slightly for different
products and product types, and between the frozen product and its alternative.

• In most cases, when looking at the carbon footprint, ingredient production (which is the
same for the frozen product and its alternative) is the most contributing life cycle stage. This
means cultivation of the vegetables, catching of the fish or, in the case of the Atlantic
Salmon fillet, farming the fish. For fish products, the main impact comes from the catching
operations (e.g. fuel usage) of the fish itself (for wild-caught fish) and production of fish feed
(for farmed fish). For plant-based products, the main contributors to the carbon footprint
within the cultivation varies with common sources being fuel-use during planting and
harvesting, land-use change, herbicide and pesticide production, and irrigation efforts.
• The relative contribution of manufacturing to the carbon footprint varies between the
products. For the Green Cuisine products (vegetarian burger, falafel and chicken-less
nuggets), it has a significant contribution to the overall carbon footprint, while for the pure
vegetable products it does not. The fish products lie somewhere in the middle, with
manufacturing being a bigger or smaller contributor to the overall carbon footprint
depending on the case. The impact of this stage is mainly driven by the energy use, where
the share of renewable electricity sources in the electricity mix used by the factory has a
large influence.
• For most products under study, packaging has a fairly low, but not scientifically insignificant
contribution to the carbon footprint, with the exception of the jarred and canned alternative
products where the impact is significant. In contrast, many of the frozen products are
packaged in a cardboard and/or thin plastic film that has a relatively low impact.
• For the frozen and alternative products under study, distribution between the factory,
distribution centres and retail does not have a large impact to the overall carbon footprint.
• Storage at retail and the consumer is a significant contributor to the carbon footprint of
most products under study, with the share of renewables in the electricity mix determining
the extent of the impact.
• The food waste at retail and consumer are seen to contribute significantly to the carbon
footprint, most notably the consumer food losses for fresh alternatives. In the screening
study leading up to this study, it became clear that the food loss and waste percentages at
retail and the consumer used have a significant effect on the overall results. To acknowledge
the importance of these numbers and their relative uncertainty, the results are shown with
the default food loss and waste percentages in general, but a tipping point is calculated as
well.
• For most products (both fresh and frozen) in this study, consumer preparation has a
scientifically significant contribution to the overall carbon footprint, although in many cases
it is still a relatively low share. The main products where consumer preparation has a larger
contribution to the overall carbon footprint is when the product is prepared in the oven.
This impact is among others influenced by the local electricity mix.

Since retail and consumer can have a big share of the environmental impact of a product,
environmental impact studies of food products and labels based on these, should include the
whole life cycle (cradle-to-grave) instead of excluding the retail, consumer and end-of-life life
cycle stages (cradle-to-gate).

Short summary LCA of 22 frozen food products and their alternatives 7

Limitations of the study
While this study attempted to be as accurate and detailed as possible, limitations still exist, as in
any LCA study. Most notably, there are limitations in the selection of the alternative products, the
secondary data sources (such as literature) used and modelling approaches. The concluding
statement is expressed with these limitations in mind.

Conclusions
Considering the results, interpretation, sensitivity analysis and uncertainty assessments, this
study shows that when it comes to carbon footprint, there is no general advantage or
disadvantage to using frozen food products compared to products using alternative
preservation methods. However, it does support the hypothesis that when food loss and
waste rates in the retail and consumer stages are lower for a frozen product compared to a
non-frozen alternative, this may compensate for the additional energy use caused by a
frozen supply chain when looking at carbon footprint.

This conclusion is based on the overall conservative approach that was used in this study on
multiple fronts, meaning that the differences stem solely from the preservation method and not
from other factors such as the ingredient composition, processing efficiencies, ingredient
distribution route, and location of consumption.
Conclusions on all environmental issues:
While this study covered a wide range of environmental issues (impact categories), it mainly
investigated the carbon footprint of the products. The results and uncertainty assessment have
shown that the carbon footprint is not always a good representation of the results on other
impact categories. So, conclusions based on the carbon footprint cannot be generalized to overall
environmental impact.
In many of the studied products, the trend as to which product has a lower impact - the frozen or
the alternative - is fairly constant when looking at the other impact categories. However, without
exception there are trade-offs in all products under study, where there is an advantage of one
product in one impact category but not in another. Further research could look further into these
trade-offs.

Short summary LCA of 22 frozen food products and their alternatives 8