Cited by 1,017Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability

Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories

Open access
Clune, Stephen, Crossin, Enda, Verghese, Karli·2017·Journal of Cleaner Production

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Life cycle assessments have demonstrated a particularly high climate impact of beef and other ruminant meat compared with meat from monogastric animals.

    “Life cycle assessments (LCAs) have demonstrated a particularly high climate impact of beef and other types of ruminant meat in comparison with meat from monogastric animals (Clune et al., 2017;Gerber et al., 2013).”
  • Clune et al. (41) provide GWP estimates for over 150 food categories, converted to a common benchmark of 'farm to regional distribution center'.

    “An LCA meta-analysis study conducted by Clune et al. (41) contains GWP estimations for over 150 food categories. This paper outlines estimations of the kg of CO2 produced per kg of edible food product. The authors convert the various boundaries of the LCA studies to a common benchmark of “farm to regional distribution center” (41).”

    From Valuing the multiple impacts of household food waste (2019) · cites this paper as [41]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bradbear, C., Friel, S., 2011. Food systems and environmental sustainability: a review of the Australian evidence, Working Paper October 2011. ANU College of Medicine, Biology and the Environment, Canberra.
  2. Mungkung, R., Gheewala, S.H., 2007. Use of life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impacts of aquaculture and agri-food products, in: Bartley, D., Brugère, C., Soto, D., Gerber, P., Harvey, B. (Eds.), Comparative assessment of the environmental costs of aquaculture and other food production sectors: methods for meaningful comparisons. FAO/WFT Expert Workshop. FAO Fisheries Proceedings, Vancouver, pp. 87-96.
  3. Renouf, M.A., Fujita-Fimas, C., 2013. The 8th Life Cycle Conference: Apllication of LCA in Australian agriculture -a review, 8th Pathways to greening global markets. ALCAS, Sydney, pp. 1-22.
  4. Svanes, E., 2008. Practical application of results from LCA of root and leaf vegetable, 6th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Ostfold Research, Zurich.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clune, S., Crossin, E., & Verghese, K.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • RMIT University (AU)
Corresponding author
Clune, Stephen
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
140
Pages
766-783
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2345651691
Cited by
1,017
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 145 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 137 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Keywords
greenhouse gas emissions, food emissions, global warming potential, fresh produce, food choice, life cycle assessment, ruminant livestock, non-ruminant livestock, dairy products, fruits and vegetables, meat consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review