Objectives: Global sustainability is considered the number one health concern facing our planet. Dental care is currently not provided in a sustainable way. This study aims to quantify the potential environmental burden of an examination in a hypothetical dental practice and identify major contributors to environmental harm.Materials and Methods: A life cycle analysis was performed for the life cycle of an examination of one patient in a hypothetical dental practice. The equipment and products analysed were those available at the Faculty of Dentistry, Malmö University. The Ecoinvent version 3.5 database and the life cycle assessment software tool OpenLCA version 1.10 were chosen for this study.Results: Normalized results indicate that the impact categories to which the modelled examination most significantly contributes are water scarcity, freshwater eutrophication and human toxicity (cancer effects). The major contributors or hotspots relating to the environmental harm of an examination procedure are soaps and detergents, disposable bibs, surface disinfection, stainless‐steel instruments, clothing, water use and wastewater.Conclusion: Normalized results indicate that the potential environmental impact of an examination compared to one individual's impact per year is minimal. Considering the potential number of dental examinations and other dental procedures performed every year puts the findings in another perspective. This paper touches on some of the ways that the environmental burden of an examination could be reduced. Small changes to everyday practice, such as always making sure the dishwasher and washing machines are full when turned on, using less environmentally damaging soaps, more sustainable clothing alternatives and using necessary instruments could significantly reduce dentistry's environmental impact. Changes in materials and practice may result in potential trade‐offs. Research would need to be carried out comparing the environmental burden of any alternatives. We hope in the near future that there will be more evidence relating to products used within dental care settings, potential trade‐offs and dentistry's environmental burden.

In order to reduce the transmission of pathogens, and COVID-19, WHO and NHS England recommend hand washing (HW) and/or the use of hand sanitizer (HS). The planetary health consequences of these different methods of hand hygiene have not been quantified. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to compare the environmental impact of the UK population practising increased levels of hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic for 1 year. Washing hands with soap and water was compared to using hand sanitizer (both ethanol and isopropanol based sanitizers were studied). The isopropanol-based HS had the lowest environmental impact in 14 out of the 16 impact categories used in this study. For climate change, hand hygiene using isopropanol HS produced the equivalent of 1060 million kg CO₂, compared to 1460 million for ethanol HS, 2300 million for bar soap HW, and 4240 million for liquid soap HW. For both the ethanol and isopropanol HS, the active ingredient was the greatest overall contributing factor to the environmental impact (83.24% and 68.68% respectively). For HW with liquid soap and bar soap, there were additional contributing factors other than the soap itself: for example tap water use (28.12% and 48.68% respectively) and the laundering of a hand towel to dry the hands (10.17% and 17.92% respectively). All forms of hand hygiene have an environmental cost, and this needs to be weighed up against the health benefits of preventing disease transmission. When comparing hand sanitizers to handwashing with soap and water, this study found that using isopropanol based hand sanitizer is better for planetary health. However, no method of hand hygiene was ideal; isopropanol had a greater fossil fuel resource use than ethanol based hand sanitizer. More research is needed to find hand hygiene sources which do not diminish planetary health, and environmental impact is a consideration for public health campaigns around hand hygiene.

Consumers are increasingly asking for foods that are healthier, more humane, and environmentally sustainable. Recently, chickpea cooking water—aquafaba—has gained popularity as a potential egg substitute that complies with these criteria. However, research on the environmental impact of this ingredient is lacking. We performed a comparative attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) of mayonnaise made with aquafaba as the emulsifying agent, and traditional mayonnaise made with egg yolk. The vegan mayonnaise was found not to be as environmentally sustainable as the egg-based product. The vegan mayonnaise had a significantly (p < 0.05) lower impact across 4 categories, but a significantly higher impact across 8 categories out of 16, including climate change and resource-use-energy-carriers. The majority of categories under which vegan mayonnaise underperformed were related to the electricity needed for aquafaba processing. These impacts can be mitigated with a “cleaner” electricity grid, or onsite renewable electricity generation. Substituting the Mexican grid, where the aquafaba is currently processed, for the Canadian grid, where the mayonnaise is produced, reduced the carbon footprint of the vegan mayonnaise by 37%, making it similar to the egg-based product. As sunflower oil production was linked to extensive environmental burdens, we performed additional sensitivity analyses around oil processing, sunflower production, and other vegetable oils. Our study shows that substituting egg yolk with aquafaba could cause an increase in the environmental footprint of mayonnaise due to high processing costs, illustrating that vegan options do not always have a smaller environmental footprint, and can represent a trade-off in their comparatively more humane and healthier offer.

Industrialised agriculture is heavily reliant upon synthetic nitrogen fertilisers and imported protein feeds, posing environmental and food security challenges. Increasing the cultivation of leguminous crops that biologically fix nitrogen and provide high protein feed and food could help to address these challenges. We report on the innovative use of an important leguminous crop, pea (Pisum sativum L.), as a source of starch for alcohol (gin) production, yielding protein-rich animal feed as a co-product. We undertook life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental footprint of 1 L of packaged gin produced from either 1.43 kg of wheat grain or 2.42 kg of peas via fermentation and distillation into neutral spirit. Allocated environmental footprints for pea-gin were smaller than for wheat-gin across 12 of 14 environmental impact categories considered. Global warming, resource depletion, human toxicity, acidification and terrestrial eutrophication footprints were, respectively, 12%, 15%, 15%, 48% and 68% smaller, but direct land occupation was 112% greater, for pea-gin versus wheat-gin. Expansion of LCA boundaries indicated that co-products arising from the production of 1 L of wheat- or pea-gin could substitute up to 0.33 or 0.66 kg soybean animal feed, respectively, mitigating considerable greenhouse gas emissions associated with land clearing, cultivation, processing and transport of such feed. For pea-gin, this mitigation effect exceeds emissions from gin production and packaging, so that each L of bottled pea gin avoids 2.2 kg CO2 eq. There is great potential to scale the use of legume starches in production of alcoholic beverages and biofuels, reducing dependence on Latin American soybean associated with deforestation and offering considerable global mitigation potential in terms of climate change and nutrient leakage - estimated at circa 439 Tg CO2 eq. and 8.45 Tg N eq. annually.