Correction: Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030 (The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, (2023), 28, 3, (234-254), 10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8)

Abstract

Due to a copy paste error in transferring data from the LCA software to the spreadsheet where the figures and tables for the article were made, the environmental burdens and benefits of two wastewater treatment processes were included for cultivated meat (CM) production, instead of one. This error was discovered by one of the authors and corrected accordingly. It affects the CM results in Table 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The results for conventional meats in the article and ll results (both CM and conventional meats) in the Supplementary Materials are unaffected. The impact of this error is generally very small, but significant for CM results for blue water use shown in for Fig. The additional inclusion of the wastewater treatment process resulted in higher environmental scores for CM on all indicators reported in the article except blue water use. The reason for this is that after waste water treatment, water is released back to the environment, and therefore this has a positive environmental effect (process: Wastewater from potato starch production {CH}| treatment of, capacity 1.1E10l/year | Cut-off). Due to the error, 2.5 times more wastewater was treated than which was produced at the CM facility. After correction, CM has a 0% to 1% lower score for all indicators except blue water use (Table 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). This does not alter any interpretation or conclusions. For blue water use, this results in an increase of the water footprint of CM of 19 liters to 86 liters. This impacts the comparative ranking of the ambitious benchmarks of CM and conventional meats presented in the article (Fig. 4). Blue water use for CM is 1.3, 1.9 and 1.2 times higher than chicken, pork and beef from dairy cattle respectively, and 3 times lower than beef from beef cattle.