Abstract/Summary

Purpose Processed food products are often marketed as healthier alternatives by highlighting beneficial nutrient content or limiting unhealthy ingredients. This study evaluates and compares the nutritional and environmental impacts of three alternative snacks available on the market: Regular Potato Crisps, Lentil-Based Alternative, and Chickpea-Based Alternative. Methodology The CONE-LCA framework was applied by combining ELCA inventories, based on ingredient assumptions from product packaging, with nutritional risk factors derived from labelled values. DALYs were calculated for both environmental and nutritional impacts and integrated into a single assessment, using the recommended portion as the functional unit to reflect consumption reality. Findings The alternatives to potato crisps are not systematically healthier or more sustainable. The main drivers of health and environmental impacts are shared ingredients such as oils and sodium, as well as processing methods, which limits the benefits of simple substitution. More positive impacts can be achieved through recommending smaller portion sizes to consumers and encouraging industry to reformulate by substituting key ingredients. Implications CONE-LCA offers a more realistic view of health impacts and is applied here for the first time to processed snacks. Using portion size as the functional unit strengthens its relevance for consumers and policymakers, and supports better choices in product formulation and dietary guidance while acknowledging trade-offs. Originality This study extends CONE-LCA to processed snack foods, demonstrates its application at the product level, and introduces a portion-based functional unit that reflects real consumption behaviour.