Understanding environmental impacts of complete food supply chains is important for the food industry to help devise strategies for reducing the impacts of current and future products. Breakfast cereals are one of the most important foods consumed in many countries, but their environmental impacts are currently unknown. Therefore, this study explores the environmental sustainability issues in the food–energy–water nexus by considering breakfast cereals manufactured by one of the world’s largest producers, Kellogg Europe. A life cycle assessment has been carried out for these purposes with the aim of helping the Company to integrate environmental sustainability considerations into the design of their products and packaging. The results indicate that the average global warming potential (GWP) of Kellogg’s breakfast cereals is 2.64 kg CO2 eq. per kg of product. The main GWP hotspots are the ingredients (48%) and energy used in the manufacturing process (23%); packaging and transport contribute 15% each. Rice is the single largest contributor to the GWP of the ingredients (38%). The manufacturing stage is the main contributor of primary energy demand (34%), while the ingredients are responsible for more than 90% of the water footprint. The ingredients are also the main contributors to most other environmental impacts, including land use (97%), depletion of elements (61%), eutrophication (71%), human toxicity (54%) and photochemical smog (50%). The impacts from packaging are high for freshwater and marine toxicity. The contribution of transport is significant for depletion of elements and fossil resources (23%), acidification (32%), ozone depletion (28%) and photochemical smog (24%). Improvement opportunities explored in the paper include better agricultural practices, recipe modifications, improved energy efficiency of manufacturing processes and use of alternative packaging. Impacts from consumption are also discussed.

More and more people in Bangladesh have recently become aware of the risk of drinking arsenic-contaminated groundwater, and have been trying to obtain drinking water from less arsenic-contaminated sources. In this study, arsenic intakes of 18 families living in one block of a rural village in an arsenic-affected district of Bangladesh were evaluated to investigate their actual arsenic intake via food, including from cooking water, and to estimate the contribution of each food category and of drinking water to the total arsenic intake. Water consumption rates were estimated by the self-reporting method. The mean drinking water intake was estimated as about 3 L/d without gender difference. Arsenic intakes from food were evaluated by the duplicate portion sampling method. The duplicated foods from each family were divided into four categories (cooked rice, solid food, cereals for breakfast, and liquid food), and the arsenic concentrations of each food category and of the drinking water were measured. The mean arsenic intake from water and food by all 18 respondents was 0.15 ± 0.11 mg/d (range, 0.043 - 0.49), that by male subjects was 0.18 ± 0.13 mg/d (n = 12) and that by female subjects was 0.096 ± 0.007 mg/d (n = 6). The average contributions to the total arsenic intake were, from drinking water, 13%; liquid food, 4.4%; cooked rice, 56%; solid food, 11%; and cereals, 16%. Arsenic intake via drinking water was not high despite the highly contaminated groundwater in the survey area because many families had changed their drinking water sources to less-contaminated ones. Instead, cooked rice contributed most to the daily arsenic intake. Use of contaminated water for cooking by several families was suspected based on comparisons of arsenic concentrations between drinking water and liquid food, and between rice before and after cooking. Detailed investigation suggested that six households used contaminated water for cooking but not drinking, leading to an increase of arsenic intake via arsenic-contaminated cooking water.