## 3 Results and Discussion: Environmental and Human Health Impact Assessment of Cooked Ham Production
### Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Cooked Ham Production
These differences with data from Sweden can therefore be explained by the different energy sources used by the two countries. Additionally, this study considered all steps up to the point of sale, but the product has not been treated after being slaughtered. Compared to cooked ham, the difference is probably largely due to the extent of the contribution of ham production and storage on the distribution and product use stages. Therefore, in our study we considered more impacts. In addition, according to [PERSON] et al. [72], the nonrenewable energy demand is 19.5 MJ.kg\({}^{-1}\) for slaughtered pork, with a contribution of 13% for the slaughtering stage. In this respect, the conventionally cooked ham had a very high energy consumption (87.7%), with a contribution of 10% from slaughtering. The breed from the previous study conducted in Sweden was not the same type of breed that is used in France because, according to the Agribalsye database, the nonrenewable energy consumption for a conventional pig raised in France is equal to 17.3 MJ.kg\({}^{-1}\) pork (live weight). These differences originate from the processed meat product due to the high raw material requirements (pieces of ham) and the steps required (cutting, cooking, and slicing) to produce a superior cooked ham. Despite the importance of limiting energy demand in sustainable food production [73], in the studies available on processed meat products, this impact category was not evaluated. Studies on the energy demand of meat products are  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Impact Category** & **Unity** & **Run Material Production** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Pondication of Coded Ham**} & **Distribution** & **Use Phase** \\ \cline{3-7}  & & & **Conventional** & **Insurative** & & \\ \hline Nonrenewable Energy & M-kg & **2.884\({}^{+1}\)** & 7.08\({}^{+1}\) & 7.24\({}^{+1}\) & 1.96\({}^{+1}\) & 1.96\({}^{+1}\) & 3.85\({}  
needed to identify and control or reduce the potential for preservation processes with a high potential environmental impact. The carbon footprint of cooked ham (13.422 and 13.439 kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq.kg\({}^{-1}\)) was similar to that obtained in other studies. In France, the carbon footprint of cooked ham was studied by the research firm BioIntelligence Service. Their superior cooked ham had a carbon footprint that varied from 7.71 to 8.55 CO\({}_{2}\) eq.kg\({}^{-1}\) (equivalent corresponding to the functional unit of this study) depending on the product (different numbers of slices, with or without the rind) [74]. The steps taken into account in the study by BioIntelligence Service were agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and packaging. Between 63.1% and 75.9% of the potential for depletion of nonrenewable resources comes from the ham production phase and, more particularly, from the raw material production phase (in particular, pork). The consumption is mainly of electricity and gas on the farm (34.9%), as well as the consumption of fuel on the pig farm (26.4%), which contributes the most to the depletion of nonrenewable resources. According to [PERSON] [10], pork in Sweden has an impact of 6.1 kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq.kg\({}^{-1}\) meat ([PERSON] et al. 2012). The CO\({}_{2}\) emission impacts are also dependent on the energy sources of each country. In this case, France could be associated with low CO\({}_{2}\) emissions because its electricity is predominantly nuclear. In terms of contribution, the main step was the production of raw material, followed by packaging, cooking, transportation, slaughtering, and storage. Distribution contributed to 3.3% of the impacts in this case. A rough estimate was given by our study for the distribution stage (4%). Another study on pork pie (2-3 kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq.kg\({}^{-1}\)) produced in France showed that the production of raw materials also contributed 80% of the impact to the life cycle and that the processing stage contributed 10% to the cycle. The influence of transportation was negligible [13].