Chemicals emitted to the environment affect ecosystem health from local to global scale, and reducing chemical impacts has become an important element of European and global sustainability efforts. The present work ad-vances ecotoxicity characterization of chemicals in life cycle impact assessment by proposing recommendations resulting from international expert workshops and work conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative in the GLAM project (Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators). We include specific recommendations for broadening the assessment scope through proposing to introduce additional environmental compartments beyond freshwater and related ecotoxicity indicators, as well as for adapting the ecotoxicity effect modelling approach to better reflect environmentally relevant exposure levels and including to a larger extent chronic test data. As result, we (1) propose a consistent mathematical framework for calculating freshwater ecotoxicity characterization factors and their underlying fate, exposure and effect pa-rameters; (2) implement the framework into the USEtox scientific consensus model; (3) calculate characteriza-tion factors for chemicals reported in an inventory of a life cycle assessment case study on rice production and consumption; and (4) investigate the influence of effect data selection criteria on resulting indicator scores. Our results highlight the need for careful interpretation of life cycle assessment impact scores in light of robustness of underlying species sensitivity distributions. Next steps are to apply the recommended characterization frame-work in additional case studies, and to adapt it to soil, sediment and the marine environment. Our framework is applicable for evaluating chemicals in life cycle assessment, chemical and environmental footprinting, chemical substitution, risk screening, chemical prioritization, and comparison with environmental sustainability targets.

Purpose The EU environmental footprint (EF) is a life cycle assessment (LCA)-based method which aims at assessing the environmental impacts of products and organisations through 16 midpoint impact categories, among which three address toxicity-related impacts. This paper presents the principles underpinning the calculation of the set of characterisation factors (CFs) for the toxicity-related impact categories in the EF version 3.0: freshwater ecotoxicity (ECOTOX), human toxicity cancer (HTOX_c) and human toxicity non-cancer (HTOX_nc). Methods In order to respond to the issues that emerged during the EF pilot phase, the input data and the calculation principles of the USEtox® model were updated. In particular, (i) robustness factors (RFs) were introduced to reduce the dominance of metals and to balance the lackness of a robust fate modelling for non-organic compounds in USEtox®; (ii) high-quality data were selected from databases of EU agencies (European Chemicals Agency and European Food Safety Authority) to guarantee the transparency and the reliability of input data; and (iii) a new approach based on HC 20 (hazard concentration killing 20% of the exposed population) was implemented to derive freshwater ecotoxicity effect factors (EfF). Results and discussion The new approach increased the number of characterised chemicals in the three impact categories: ECOTOX (6038 chemicals, + 140%), HTOX_c (1024 chemicals, + 70%) and HTOX_nc (3317 chemicals, + 660%). Moreover, specific derivation principles were defined for assigning CFs also to relevant groups of chemicals (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), and specific strategies were implemented to better align LCA toxicity data with data used for risk assessment purposes. Conclusions The new set of CFs was calculated to ensure a broader coverage of characterised chemicals and to overcome some limitations of the USEtox® model identified during the environmental footprint pilot phase.

Since its creation in 2002, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has produced risk assessments for over 5000 substances in >2000 Scientific Opinions, Statements and Conclusions through the work of its Scientific Panels, Units and Scientific Committee. OpenFoodTox is an open source toxicological database, available both for download and data visualisation which provides data for all substances evaluated by EFSA including substance characterisation, links to EFSA's outputs, applicable legislations regulations, and a summary of hazard identification and hazard characterisation data for human health, animal health and ecological assessments. The database has been structured using OECD harmonised templates for reporting chemical test summaries (OHTs) to facilitate data sharing with stakeholders with an interest in chemical risk assessment, such as sister agencies, international scientific advisory bodies, and others. This manuscript provides a description of OpenFoodTox including data model, content and tools to download and search the database. Examples of applications of OpenFoodTox in chemical risk assessment are discussed including new quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, integration into tools (OECD QSAR Toolbox and AMBIT-2.0), assessment of environmental footprints and testing of threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) values for food related compounds. Finally, future developments for OpenFoodTox 2.0 include the integration of new properties, such as physico-chemical properties, exposure data, toxicokinetic information; and the future integration within in silico modelling platforms such as QSAR models and physiologically-based kinetic models. Such structured in vivo, in vitro and in silico hazard data provide different lines of evidence which can be assembled, weighed and integrated using harmonised Weight of Evidence approaches to support the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in chemical risk assessment and the reduction of animal testing.

Using the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) ecotoxicity data, this paper compares 3 different approaches to calculate final substance toxicity hazard values using the USEtox approach (chronic EC50 + acute EC50/2), using only acute EC50 equivalent data (EC50(eq)), and using only chronic no observed effect concentration equivalent (NOECeq) data. About 4008, 4853, and 5560 substance hazard values could be calculated for the USEtox model, acute only, and chronic only approaches, respectively. The USEtox model provides hazard values similar to the ones based on acute EC50 data only. Although there is a large amount of variability in the ratios, the data support acute EC50(eq) to chronic NOECeq ratios (calculated as geometric mean) of 10.64, 10.90, and 4.21 for fish, crustaceans, and algae respectively. Comparison of the calculated hazard values with the criteria used by the EU chemical Classification, Labelling, and Packaging regulation (CLP) shows the USEtox model underestimates the number of compounds categorized as very toxic to aquatic life and/or having long-lasting effects. In contrast, use of the chronic NOEC data shows a good agreement with CLP. It is therefore proposed that chronic NOECeq are used to derive substance hazard values to be used in the EU Environmental Footprint. Due to poor data availability for some chemicals, the uncertainty of the final hazard values is expected to be high. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1-12. (c) 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

The European Union Environmental Footprint (EU-EF) is a harmonized method to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations. Among 16 different impact categories included in the EU-EF, 1 focuses on the impact of substances on freshwater ecosystems and requires the use of toxicity data. This paper evaluates the use of the aquatic toxicity data submitted to the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. It presents an automated computerized approach for selecting substance ecotoxicity values, building on a set of quality and reliability criteria to extract the most relevant data points for calculating the substance specific hazard values. A selected set of criteria led to the exclusion of approximately 82% of the original REACH ecotoxicological data available as of May 2015 due to incomplete initial encoding of the data by the REACH registrant, missing information such as duration of exposure, endpoint measured, species tested, and imprecise toxicity values (i.e., reported with greater than or less than signs). From an initial set of 305 068 ecotoxicity data records available in the REACH database, the final usable database contains 54 353 toxicity records (29 421 characterized as acute and 24 941 as chronic) covering 9 taxonomic groups, with algae, crustaceans, and fish representing 93% of the data. This data set is valuable for assessing the environmental toxicity of the substance contained whether through traditional substance risk assessment, product toxicity labeling, life cycle assessment (LCA) or environmental impact assessment approaches. However, the resulting loss of approximately 82% of the data suggests that changes in procedures used to generate, report, and document the data within REACH are needed to improve data utility for the various assessment approaches. The rules used to select the data to be used are the primary focus of this article. (c) 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

The EU Commission Ecolabel and the Product and Environmental Footprint (PEF) aim at promoting the development and consumption of greener products. The product aquatic toxicity score from these 2 methods may lead in some circumstances to opposite conclusions. Although this could be interpreted as an inconsistency, the score should not be compared to each other but used in a complementary way. In short, CDV provided a "full" product formula aquatic toxicity score, even if some chemicals may never reach or persist in freshwater ecosystems. The USEtox® score, by integrating fate and exposure, focuses on the potential toxicity of persistent-water-soluble chemicals at steady state. Since no risk or safety assessment can be conducted with USEtox® nor with the CDV, both are a hazard-based scoring system. This short communication clarifies the difference between approaches underpinning the toxicity scores used in Ecolabel and PEF, providing guidance on how to interpret the results.

Ecosystem quality is an important area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Chemical pollution has adverse impacts on ecosystems on a global scale. To improve methods for assessing ecosystem impacts, the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme established a task force to evaluate the state‐of‐the‐science in modeling chemical exposure of organisms and the resulting ecotoxicological effects for use in LCIA. The outcome of the task force work will be global guidance and harmonization by recommending changes to the existing practice of exposure and effect modeling in ecotoxicity characterization. These changes will reflect the current science and ensure the stability of recommended practice. Recommendations must work within the needs of LCIA in terms of 1) operating on information from any inventory reporting chemical emissions with limited spatiotemporal information, 2) applying best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to ensure unbiased comparison with results for other impact categories, and 3) yielding results that are additive across substances and life cycle stages and that will allow a quantitative expression of damage to the exposed ecosystem. We describe the current framework and discuss research questions identified in a roadmap. Primary research questions relate to the approach toward ecotoxicological effect assessment, the need to clarify the method's scope and interpretation of its results, the need to consider additional environmental compartments and impact pathways, and the relevance of effect metrics other than the currently applied geometric mean of toxicity effect data across species. Because they often dominate ecotoxicity results in LCIA, we give metals a special focus, including consideration of their possible essentiality and changes in environmental bioavailability. We conclude with a summary of key questions along with preliminary recommendations to address them as well as open questions that require additional research efforts. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2955–2971. © 2018 SETAC

The scientific consensus model USEtox® is recommended by the European Commission as the reference model to characterize life cycle chemical emissions in terms of their potential human toxicity and freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity impacts in the context of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook and the Environmental Footprint pilot phase looking at products (PEF) and organizations (OEF). Consequently, this model has been systematically used within the PEF/OEF pilot phase by 25 European Union industry sectors, which manufacture a wide variety of consumer products. This testing phase has raised some questions regarding the derivation of and the data used for the chemical-specific freshwater ecotoxicity effect factor in USEtox. For calculating the potential freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity impacts, USEtox bases the effect factor on the chronic hazard concentration (HC50) value for a chemical calculated as the arithmetic mean of all logarithmized geometric means of species-specific chronic median lethal (or effect) concentrations (L[E]C50). We investigated the dependency of the USEtox effect factor on the selection of ecotoxicological data source and toxicological endpoints, and we found that both influence the ecotoxicity ranking of chemicals and may hence influence the conclusions of a PEF/OEF study. We furthermore compared the average measure (HC50) with other types of ecotoxicity effect indicators, such as the lowest species EC50 or no-observable-effect concentration, frequently used in regulatory risk assessment, and demonstrated how they may also influence the ecotoxicity ranking of chemicals. We acknowledge that these indicators represent different aspects of a chemical's ecotoxicity potential and discuss their pros and cons for a comparative chemical assessment as performed in life cycle assessment and in particular within the PEF/OEF context. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:3450-3462. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Food loss is a major concern from both environmental and social point of view. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been largely applied to quantify the environmental impact of food and to identify pros and cons of different options for optimisation of food systems management, including the recovery of potential waste occurring along the supply chain. However, within LCA case studies, there is still a general lack of proper accounting of food losses. A discrepancy both in food loss definition and in the approaches adopted to model the environmental burden of food loss has been observed. These aspects can lead to misleading and, sometimes, contrasting results, limiting the reliability of LCA as a decision support tool for assessing food production systems. This article aims, firstly, at providing a preliminary analysis on how the modelling of food loss has been conducted so far in LCA studies. Secondly, it suggests a definition for food loss to be adopted. Finally, the article investigates the consequence of using such definition and it proposes potential paths for the development of a common methodological framework to increase the robustness and comparability of the LCA studies. It discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches adopted to account for food loss along the food supply chain: primary production, transport and storage, food processing, distribution, consumption and end of life. It is also proposed to account separately between avoidable, possibly avoidable and unavoidable food loss by means of specific indicators. Finally, some recommendations for LCA practitioners are provided on how to deal with food loss in LCA studies focused on food products. The most relevant recommendations concern: i) the systematic accounting of food loss generated along the food supply chain; ii) the modelling of waste treatments according to the specific characteristics of food; iii) the sensitivity analysis on the modelling approaches adopted to model multi-functionality; and iv) the need of transparency in describing the modelling of food loss generation and management.

The scientific consensus model USEtox® has been developed since 2003 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme-Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Life Cycle Initiative as a harmonized approach for characterizing human and freshwater toxicity in life cycle assessment and other comparative assessment frameworks. Using physicochemical substance properties, USEtox quantifies potential human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity impacts by combining environmental fate, exposure, and toxicity effects information, considering multimedia fate and multipathway exposure processes. The main source to obtain substance properties for USEtox 1.01 and 2.0 is the Estimation Program Interface (EPI Suite™) from the US Environmental Protection Agency. However, since the development of the original USEtox substance databases, new chemical regulations have been enforced in Europe, such as the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and the Plant Protection Products regulations. These regulations require that a chemical risk assessment for humans and the environment is performed before a chemical is placed on the European market. Consequently, additional physicochemical property data and new toxicological endpoints are now available for thousands of chemical substances. The aim of the present study was to explore the extent to which the new available data can be used as input for USEtox-especially for application in environmental footprint studies-and to discuss how this would influence the quantification of fate and exposure factors. Initial results show that the choice of data source and the parameters selected can greatly influence fate and exposure factors, leading to potentially different rankings and relative contributions of substances to overall human toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts. Moreover, it is crucial to discuss the relevance of the exposure factor for freshwater ecotoxicity impacts, particularly for persistent highly adsorbing and bioaccumulating substances. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:3463-3470. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Life cycle thinking is increasingly seen as a key concept for ensuring a transition towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns. As food production systems and consumption patterns are among the leading drivers of impacts on the environment, it is important to assess and improve food-related supply chains as much as possible. Over the years, life cycle assessment has been used extensively to assess agricultural systems and food processing and manufacturing activities, and compare alternatives “from field to fork” and through to food waste management. Notwithstanding the efforts, several methodological aspects of life cycle assessment still need further improvement in order to ensure adequate and robust support for decision making in both business and policy development contexts. This paper discusses the challenges for life cycle assessment arising from the complexity of food systems, and recommends research priorities for both scientific development and improvements in practical implementation. In summary, the intrinsic variability of food production systems requires dedicated modelling approaches, including addressing issues related to: the distinction between technosphere and ecosphere; the most appropriate functional unit; the multi-functionality of biological systems; and the modelling of the emissions and how this links with life cycle impact assessment. Also, data availability and interpretation of the results are two issues requiring further attention, including how to account for consumer behaviour.

Food supply chains are increasingly associated with environmental and socio-economic impacts. An increasing global population, an evolution in consumers' needs, and changes in consumption models pose serious challenges to the overall sustainability of food production and consumption. Life cycle thinking (LCT) and assessment (LCA) are key elements in identifying more sustainable solutions for global food challenges. In defining solutions to major global challenges, it is fundamentally important to avoid burden shifting amongst supply chain stages and amongst typologies of impacts, and LCA should, therefore, be regarded as a reference method for the assessment of agri-food supply chains. Hence, this special volume has been prepared to present the role of life cycle thinking and life cycle assessment in: i) the identification of hotspots of impacts along food supply chains with a focus on major global challenges; ii) food supply chain optimisation (e.g. productivity increase, food loss reduction, etc.) that delivers sustainable solutions; and iii) assessment of future scenarios arising from both technological improvements and behavioural changes, and under different environmental conditions (e.g. climate change). This special volume consists of a collection of papers from a conference organized within the last Universal Exposition (EXPO2015) “LCA for Feeding the planet and energy for life” in Milan (Italy) in 2015 as well as other contributions that were submitted in the year after the conference that addressed the same key challenges presented at the conference. The papers in the special volume address some of the key challenges for optimizing food-related supply chains by using LCA as a reference method for environmental impact assessment. Beyond specific methodological improvements to better tailor LCA studies to food systems, there is a clear need for the LCA community to “think outside the box”, exploring complementarity with other methods and domains. The concepts and the case studies presented in this special volume demonstrate how cross-fertilization among difference science domains (such as environmental, technological, social and economic ones) may be key elements of a sustainable “today and tomorrow” for feeding the planet.