## 3 Results and Discussion: Environmental and Human Health Impact Assessment of Cooked Ham Production  
### Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Cooked Ham Production  
Table 3 shows the potential environmental impact results of the life cycle of cooked ham production for conventional and innovative scenarios. The production of conventionally cooked ham in this study used approximately 103 MJ of nonrenewable energy for the conventional scenario and approximately 104 MJ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**CASE** & **Nitrosamines** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Carcinogenic Effect Factor** \\ **(ug.kg\({}^{-1}\) Intake)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**62-75-9** & N-nitrosodimethylamine & 11.95 \\ \hline
**55-18-5** & N-nitrosodiethylamine & 43.25 \\ \hline
**930-55-2** & N-nitrosopiperidine & 3.01 \\ \hline
**100-75-4** & N-nitrosopyrrolidine & 1.57 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Factor of the carcinogenic effects of nitrosamines (via ingestion) according to USEtox 1.01 [67; 68]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Impact Category** & **Units** & **Conventional Ham** & **Innovative Ham** \\ \hline Nonrenewable & MJ-Eq & 103.003 & 104.472 \\ Renewable & MJ-Eq & 72.429 & 72.429 \\ Climate change & kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq & 13.422 & 13.439 \\ Water depletion & m\({}^{3}\) & 10.958 & 11.465 \\ Metal depletion & kg Fe eq & 0.276 & 0.277 \\ Terrestrial acidification & kg SO\({}_{2}\) eq & 0.084 & 0.086 \\ Freshwater eutrophication & kg P eq & 0.001 & 0.001 \\ Marine eutrophication & kg N eq & 0.021 & 0.021 \\ Agricultural land occupation & m\({}^{2}\) & 5.437 & 5.438 \\ Human toxicity & kg 1,4-DB eq & 0.111 & 0.112 \\ Nitrosamines toxicity & DALY & 2.20x10\({}^{-6}\) & 4.54x10\({}^{-7}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Environmental and human health impact of the cooked ham life cycle for conventional and combined innovative processes. DALY: disability-adjusted life years. of nonrenewable energy for innovative scenarios. For both scenarios, the impact of 63% was fossil energy, and 37% was nuclear energy. Conventionally cooked ham has an impact on greenhouse gas emissions of 13.4 kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq.kg\({}^{-1}\) for both scenarios (13.422 for the conventional scenario and 13.439 for the innovative scenario). The conventionally cooked ham induced the depletion of metal resources to the order of 0.28 kg Fe eq.kg\({}^{-1}\) of product for both scenarios (0.276 for the conventional scenario and 0.277 for the innovative scenario). The total amount of freshwater (m\({}^{3}\)) used in the life cycle of cooked ham for both scenarios was around 11 m\({}^{3}\) of water (10.958 for the conventional scenario and 11.465 for the innovative scenario). For all impact indicators except nitrosamine toxicity, the variation between the two scenarios was less than 5%, which is considered negligible. The potential effect of the ham life cycle directly on human health is outlined in part 3.3 Sensitivity analysis. All of these damage-oriented impact categories were then expressed in DALY. Effects on ecosystems were not estimated directly in this study (but could still be calculated from problem-oriented impact categories). To show how similar the impacts calculated by environmental LCA are for the two scenarios compared, Table 4 presents an analysis of the contributions of the different stages of the product life cycle. This analysis of ham life cycle hotspots shows how the environmental life cycle analysis makes it difficult to distinguish between the two scenarios, conventional and innovative. The production of raw material was the most important step, accounting for 94% of the potential impact due to emissions occurring during pig farming. The environmental results of our life cycle analysis study on harm production are comparable to those of previous related research. According to [PERSON] [10], the energy requirement for pork in Sweden was 32 MJ. In general, important differences are observed between countries due to differences in the applied energy sources.