Untitled - October 20, 2026

00:00:00 Speaker: Hello and welcome to the Sustainable Commodities Podcast. I'm Barnaby Patchett, MD of one ninety nine agency, a communications agency working in sustainability. And with me as always, Judith Murdoch from Murdoch Associates. And we work in forest risk commodities. Today on the podcast, we're joined by Laura Noble from Global Feed LCA Institute. I for short, Laura's going to be telling us all about the work of the GFL, what they do and what's changing in the world of life cycle assessments when it comes to feed inspectors, to cover the forces and legislation driving the changes, and why getting a picture of feed is so important. So Laura, welcome. Um, can we start off by, um, just, uh, you telling us a little bit about yourself and the work that you actually do at GFL. I Yeah. Of course. Thank you for having me. First of all, uh, so my name is Laura. I'm a project or a project manager at the Global Health Institute. The institute has been created in twenty nineteen with the goal to have a non-profit entity that delivers an evolving global database for emissions of feed ingredients. So with the goal to make sure that on a global scale, we can cover environmental footprints for feed ingredients and therefore playing a huge role within the agri food supply chain. So currently we have a database with over two thousand ingredients based on major commodities globally as well, but with a bigger focus on Europe and America. And we'll continue to develop the methodology to make sure that we're aligned with the global standards, such as the FAO Environmental Assessment partnership that leap and as well as the EU um, for feed for food producing and yeah, the feed for food producing animals, uh, standards. It's a whole mouthful. For sure is. So just who are your members then? Who, who actually takes part in your organization? That's a good question. We have quite some different members. Uh, our main audience for, for the database is actually the feed companies. Since our database is based on feed ingredients, uh, the feed companies usually use it to have an additional parameter on environmental or environmental parameter for feed production or compound feed production. But we also see a lot of interest from associations. So feed associations and related organizations, as well as tool providers who use our data for farm based tools, but also feed based tools. Um, we see some research institutes also interested in participation. So I would say it's about a half half. So we have twenty eight corporate members and about twenty or twenty two now, uh, associations, associations, non-profits, um, uh, research involved. Yeah. And I guess the bit for me when I was looking at your website earlier was I can see, uh, companies that I recognized from the palm oil industry, but what are the feedstocks that go into animal feed? What are the commodities that you cover? We have a whole bunch of feed ingredients. So the most common ones are commodity items such as soy. Um, also the palm oil is also used in feed. Uh, we'd, uh, barley, maize, all these types of commodity items. But we also see that there are more specific data sets such as um, or feed additives or feed specialty ingredients, which are, uh, minerals, um, vitamins, other chemically defined ingredients and novel feed ingredients such as insects is coming up. We don't, we, we have one data set of that in the database, but it's currently not, uh, it's not, it's not running a store right now. So pretty much all types of ingredients that are being fed to animals that are also commercially available, of course, are, are in the scope of the database. So it must be quite difficult to do an LCA on feed. You know, the ingredients change. You're sourcing multiple different things going into it. And formulations can change as well based on, you know, price points of different commodities. So, you know, how do you do it? Luckily I'm not an LCA practitioner so I don't have to do it. But the way our database is managed is through. Um, so we have a default methodology which uses statistical data from FAO statistics. And it's modeled to have a global coverage or national coverage of these, uh, major commodities. But the real interesting part is of course what we call sectoral data sets. So that's actually doing an LCA with actual primary data from either your own company or also in a collaboration with a consortium of companies. And usually we see that some associations have done this where they do a data project and they gather data from their members. So that's their energy use the seed use or whatever comes into play to have this, uh, environmental footprint of these ingredients. And they aggregated it for sectoral average or for a national average, for example, as well. So there, you see that primary data can actually be used to show where the product is actually at, rather than using a pure average. Rather than using something that's kind of yeah, sort of not not based on, on any specific company's data. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Because you still see that there's a bit of a difference between the sectoral or the, the data that's out there as a secondary data source and as a companies are actually working with. So you want, we want to get, want to get a bit, a little bit closer towards the actual reality of environmental footprint, since a lot of them are also based still on conservative figures, which, you know, makes sense because you don't want to be too good. And then suddenly with primary data, you end up having a terrible environmental footprint. But of course, if you can reach the reality a bit more better, which also means that you can then really improve your processes to actually decrease your environmental footprint, which eventually brings an actual change to the emissions in the world, I guess. Yeah. I mean, how do you how do you get a methodology? How do you standardize that? Because I, I because for me, this is completely I am an absolute newbie to this. And I just it's almost overwhelming. How, how would you get started? What's what's yeah, it really is. Um, well, that's actually comes before my time. So I started working for the Jdrf since twenty twenty. And as I mentioned before, the Jdrf hasn't existed until twenty nineteen, but there was a research project back in two, I think it started somewhere in the twenty tens where the EU had some funded projects to create this first version of the database, and that was also prior to what the path has actually written for the feed for food producing animals. So it kind of all came together. So the GFI database does heavily lean on the standards that are already out there. So luckily we don't have to invent the wheel ourselves, but we do try to be more, um, more concrete because what you see, the standards are usually very broad. So you have an ISO standard, which is how to do an LCA, which is a very broad like, okay, you can use this, you can use that, you can use that. And what do you get out of it? Something very undefined in that sense. So we're trying to be more specific than the ISO, more specific than the, uh, EU, PFC or feed so that we can actually say like, okay, this is you cannot pinpoint or you cannot make too many differences in your products to make sure that you have the best outcome out of it. If it's not the correct way of calculating it, for example. Yeah. Um, let's talk about what's driving adoption. You know, why is getting an LCA for feed so important and what's what's driving it? I think I'm not sure if we're always open to communicate about this, but one of the major things that happened in the past was, uh, FAO's report about the, the long shadow, which actually presented that the feed sector is responsible for fifty light chain, or at least the livestock agricultural supply chain. So it's, it was a, quite a, a hitting fact to know that the feed that we give to the animals provides more emissions than the actual eating it ourselves in that sense. So I think there was a driving point where the feed could see like, okay, we're a big part of the problem now. That means we can also be a big solution in the future. Hence, I think the feed sector is quite, quite fast in adoption of these metrics. I think we're one of the first cars that were out there that were actually, uh, that came together. I know some of them have also failed in the past because of a lot of discussions within the sector. Like, um, well, I know, for example, for the red meat, there was a lot of discussion how to deal with things and with the PCR feed. I think we quite had some consensus how to move that forward. So I think there you see that there's just a lot of consensus about how we should do things. And I think the bigger thing is you're part of a supply chain. So either you be the first to do it and say like, this is how we are going to do it as a feed. Please adopt it downstream partners or you wait and the downstream partner says, maybe I'll do this, maybe I'll do that. And eventually that would mean that you would have multiple standards because every food company is going to make their own rules, for example, which which sucks more as a feed company, I would say just repeat what the percentage of, of kind of, of carbon and land use was it, what did you say that the feed industry was for, for, um, for animals? Yeah, fifty to eighty percent, even fifty to eighty. So depending on the systems and, Uh, yeah. You get into all the granular details about what, what are they fed and what kind of production is behind that. But, uh, and, and just, you might not be able to answer this, but is it cattle that's biggest emission? Or is it things like poultry or pork production, uh, related towards feed? It is more towards, uh, poultry and pork because they have closed systems. So they only get fed compound feed or feed that's being produced somewhere else. So with cattle, you can kind of, you can produce your own grass and you feed it to your own cows. So it's a, a bit more of a circular system than actually importing feed ingredients, mixing it and feeding it directly to the animal as well. Mhm. Yeah. Uh, how do, how does legislation feed into this as well? You know, I know sort of consumer brands and retailers are starting to set SB t flag. That's forest land and agriculture targets. How does your database help them? Yeah. The first start is that the database, as it was always initially created, was it's it should cover the scope three emissions of, of, of, of the feed companies. So in that sense, most feed companies actually purchase their, uh, their feed ingredients. Hence they need to have that data since their suppliers are feed manufacturers or feed farmers, feed producers, I guess. So there was a big, uh, difference there. And now you see there's actually a change where the feed companies need to have more insights on where their data, where their feed is actually being produced in case they want to go towards primary data, you need to have direct contacts with your suppliers. And I think the well, for certain, the U. D r union deforestation regulation. Yeah, yeah. That one, I think that one is a big shake up because it actually kind of makes people have to find some sort of traceability with their product in order to be able to import it into Europe. And there you also see the Crcd, of course, is also pushing towards having or actually having data underlying your, your goals of environmental footprints and, and reduction of emissions. Mhm. I thought we might get to a podcast there, Judith, without order, but it's always, it's always in there. I don't think we, we don't think we've ever had one that hasn't had the mention. And I didn't do it. I didn't bring it up. Yeah. Well, don't ask me too much about it, but. Oh don't worry, we're not talking about it. I'll let the other experts figure that one out. But I wouldn't want to be in their shoes trying to figure this out. Yeah. No. Although, of course, it does cover the soy and the palm oil that's going into the feed. So. So that's how it's impacted. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And because they are major risk commodities in that sense, because there are there is deforestation possibly linked to it. It's uh, yeah, it gets a lot of attention. But for most other ingredients, I think it's, uh, it's luckily still less of a, of an issue. Mhm. Yeah. I guess that's one question I've got is that palm oil at the minute? Is it? It can still cause deforestation. So I'm not going to say there isn't deforestation, but the majority of, say, plantations in Malaysia are now on their third or, you know, potentially even fourth generation of of trees. So they will renew the plantation because after twenty five years, the yield starts to drop. That's something that is reflective because I feel like there's a, you know, when we talk about deforestation, sometimes it's just like, oh, well, we've always got to take that into account, but how long do you have to go before you discount that? From what I know from the PCR, they use the past twenty fifty methodology, which actually says it's only twenty years. But I thought for Pelham there was a specific, uh, regulation because indeed, then it has to be on the, on the basis of the, of the plant's, uh, age. I guess if that's what you call it. So I think it's for it's twenty five years indeed for, for to reflect those differences. So for other crops, it is a bit easier to, to deal with since palm is quite a specific product in that sense. Yeah, yeah it is. Yeah. Interesting stuff. Yeah. So, so moving, moving on from, from palm. And one of the things we covered in our chat last week was waste streams and how they're treated under um LCAs. Now feed is increasingly utilizing these. It often does. How are they treated. Who has to put them on their ledger. How does it how does it work from a life cycle assessment perspective. That's a good point. So our database you kind of deal with allocations where the emissions are being attributed to are database uses all three allocations to make sure that we cover all the needs of our users. So that is economic mass and energy allocation. And one of the big things is then economic allocation. So that means what's the value of the product that's being fed to the animal? Because ideally you want to make sure that most most crops are produced to feed humans, which should be the main goal of most productions in that sense. And so there you see that if it's, um, If you grow weed, for example, you also have wheat straw, which is commonly not what humans eat. So it has a allocation towards the production. Of course, it's not a zero allocation product because it's worth something. People are willing to pay for it to feed it to an animal. Hence you need to have some emissions towards it, but it is linked towards what's the actual value of the product that's being produced, and how can you separate it to make sure that the emissions are captured for the full production, but also allocated to the to the right person or the right product in that sense is a lot of. Sorry. Carry on. Judith. No, I was just going to ask the question because you two have obviously been talking before, and I just want to ask the question, what are the waste streams that you would feed to animals? What what particularly would that be? One of the most common things are either it's it's actual former foodstuffs. So that means it has light in the or it has laid in the in the supermarkets or in the bakeries. It's just not sold at the end of the day. So you can give it to the animal. Then you would see it as like a it's a waste stream because humans are not going to eat it if it's old enough or you cannot sell it anymore. So that would be a waste stream. You also have for certain production like sugar, you have the sugar beet and eventually you get this sugar beet pulp, which is not a item humans consume at all. I think so because the sugar is worth so much. And the sugar beet pulp, not so much. You see that as a waste product in that sense, or I don't think within the feed industry. I don't think they want to call the waste product because it's a valorized product for feed in that sense. Yeah, yeah, this is going to be a difficult one. So you might not be able to answer this one either. Um, I can hear a few people of my colleagues saying, well, palm kernel expeller is, is they would describe it as a byproduct. So people talk about that. So would expeller be Waste byproduct. Would that fall into that category or I wouldn't call it a waste. Like I said before, like I wouldn't call anything then a waste because as long as it has value for a certain end goal, I wouldn't treat it as a waste. But it could be seen as a what we prefer to call within the allocation atmosphere. It's more calling it a main product and a co-product. So I would say it's a co-product from another system and that gets fed to the animal. But that's also where the interesting things lie, is that you're actually working with multiple sectors to figure out this kind of allocation. Because the well, we see, for example, the biofuels, they also use feedstocks to produce something. So where does their emissions lie in that sense? And is there a difference between feeding it to the biofuels or feeding it to an animal? What do we find more valuable? I think that's a lot of theological or ideological discussions. Yeah. And also some financial ones, I guess when you've got carbon targets because you're gonna have vested interests. So I'm thinking specifically, you mentioned like, you know, it's an out of date bakery product, let's say that's going to be fed back into the animal feed chain. From a carbon perspective, you'd think, I'm sorry, the bakery has to take that. They they've got it. It's on their ledger. We're taking something that you no longer has value as that. Yes. It has value to us to some degree, but otherwise it's getting thrown away. I don't want any of the carbon on my ledger for that. Thank you very much. Feels like a fair argument. Is that how it works, or is there a bit of wrangling around that between the different industries? In some cases it is. It is quite dry. I don't think a lot of bakeries are that nervous about that also, because for for a certain bakery, it's not that many emissions, I would imagine. But yeah, for certain other products it is relevant. What we see, for example, in the in the soy value chain, before soy was really seen as a as a byproduct because it was mostly used for soybean oil, but because the value for, for it in the feed sector has increased so much that you can actually see that once I, before I started that, I think it really was like a eighty to twenty ratio. Don't quote me on this, by the way, but so you could see that eighty percent of the emissions would go to the oil, and that only twenty percent would go to the soybean meal because it wasn't worth as much. But now it has completely shifted that it's now, I think, sixty percent soybean meal and forty percent oil. So yeah, things can actually change. And this is also something that we struggle with. How are you going to communicate these changes? Because we don't live in a in a stagnant world. It will always change based on on the the value. And now even we have discussions about zero allocation products or waste products. What if they become more valuable? We have to accept that eventually they will become worthwhile to purchase. So it's going to be like a competition. And then is it still going to be worthwhile in the end to chase these products? So that's when you do it on an economic split. Yes. But if you did it on a mass split or something, you mentioned there were two other potential splits. Mhm. Uh, yeah. Then it's it's a bit different. Yes. It's a bit different. Okay. Yeah. I mean, there's always the, the, the money is always what ends up. Yeah. And who's whose responsibility. We're talking sustainability about shared responsibility a lot. But sometimes when it comes down to it, if you can say someone else needs to share more that people are very willing to. Yeah, that's very true. Mhm. Yeah. So what what? I mean, one of the things is, is obviously, you know, feed particularly say like in poultry, you know, there is people are always chasing how you can get the best nutrition into that feed. So they fatten up quickly. Horrible thought and you know how much they're going to pay for it. So why would you know, uh, uh, poultry producers or any manufacturers? Why, why would they invest in the carbon footprint? You know, what's what's the driver? On that scale? I'm not one hundred percent sure. I think eventually the way the, the, the EU path, sorry, I mentioned EU path a lot, but I think it's the, the most complete LCA. I think it's, it's, it's the most mature one in the, in the world, I guess at the moment. So it's easy to refer to them, but the, the path within the EU was created for eventually for the consumer to know what the emissions are related to which food they have on their plate. So in that sense, I think eventually farmers will have to. Either way, show their emissions. And yeah, how it works in business, of course, is that retailers will start competing with, oh, I want the lowest emissions. I think they're already doing that in that sense. They're already trying to find ways of doing that. So they want to look towards the farmers that either, uh, are the most innovative in that sense for having low emissions on their farm. But then also it goes back to, of course, the fee that the cows being fed. And so yeah, it's, it kind of comes back to that. So all the work that we're now doing should eventually flow back to the consumer to say like, oh, okay, it has an environmental footprint of X amount, this is good or bad. And it's up for the consumer to also know if that's what, what is good and what is bad, I guess. But, but ultimately for all of that, you've got to have your LCA. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so outside carbon, um, what are the other things that go into the LCA. People like to believe it's only carbon but there's much more to it of course. Um so with carbon we see greenhouse gas or greenhouse gases. So that would be the, the methane the nitrogen oxide and the CO2 equivalents. But I think what becomes more important is the other impact categories. So within the framework we have um also impact categories such as human toxicity, environmental toxicity, eutrophication potential, um, all these very specific terms, but also the water use. Um, and I think those will be come more important, hopefully because the world doesn't just revolve around CO2 equivalents or the emissions that's warming, uh, our planet. I think it also should deal with the resources that you have. So research use is also one of the impact categories. And I think with water, I'm not sure if you've also experienced it, but Europe has had a crazy summer this, uh, this period. So if that's going to be the standard water use is going to be one of our biggest issues, let alone in other countries where water has always been an issue. So I think those are becoming more important. Yeah, definitely. The weather in the UK has been extremely dry. Um, and yeah, and it's rained today and, and everyone's really commenting on how, oh, you know, rain, rain, you know, as if it's, it's something that's never happened before, which is quite interesting when you think about UK weather. So yeah, it's interesting that water is in included in that. Um, I wouldn't if you'd have asked me that question I wouldn't have included it. So yeah. Interesting. And what's changed, I guess, uh, over the kind of history of the flea. What's changed in terms of, of, of the last six or seven years on the side, on the LCA side, I don't think that much has changed yet for us. Um, yeah, we've been trying to find ways to lower the burdens for LCA. So we've been working on more technological solutions to make this easier. Um, and we do that through a data in generator tool, which is currently only for marine ingredients. But in that sense, we kind of allow people that are not LCA experts to only know their activity data or that's the data that we believe that they should know. For example, if you're a, if you're a, a renderer, a company that renders, uh, fish. So that's the byproduct of the fish for human consumption. It goes to, uh, the feed, uh, sector as a processed ingredients into meal or oil. They would know the the the fuel use that they have the the electricity use in their factories. And that sense they can make an environmental footprint for their factories. So that's kind of a easy way. So they don't have to deal with modeling or an expensive LCA consultant in that sense. But for the actual methodology, we're still following, um, the path and the FAO, which has also not been updated in the last few years. So that makes it easier. I think one of the difference is that we do have now a Sbti aligned database. So that's the science based targets initiative, who are following the greenhouse gas protocol land sector removals guidance, which has become very popular to be using. So a lot of the major corporate, uh, members that GFI has are interested in using this version of the database. So I think that's one of the solutions and where we would love to go towards with the methodology is also increasing more. methodological approaches for ingredient or for category impact categories that are not yet defined. I think biodiversity has been named the most in in all of that, because I think it's also important. And certainly if you hear those studies where we we've lost a lot of insects over the years where we see that now your your windshields from your car are never getting dirty. If you drive for five hours, which I remember even as a kid that I could see so many bugs. I was like, oh my God, that's crazy. So I think those are important factors that we should also take into account. And I'm probably missing some, but I think there's a lot more ways of us to create an LCA that could really cover more than just environmental or more than just carbon and the few categories that we currently have. Yeah, I've definitely been diverse. I think he's really important. And, and certainly the biodiversity. Definitely know a lot of companies talk about nature, biodiversity and. And as you suggest, you know that water use is has an impact on humans elsewhere as well, doesn't it? So if you have a really thirsty crop or whatever, again, you're taking water away from local communities, potentially, you know, to, to, to keep things watered. So yeah, interesting points. Yeah. And that's a good point as well that you mentioned. That's, uh, um, certainly in the CR CD, for example, environmental footprint is only a part of that, uh, directive. But I think the labor is also an important factor and the, the value that, uh, yeah, you're the, yeah, the social factors related towards the production can also be quite relevant. Yeah. So going into the future, I guess, um, what do things look like in five years time? How's the LCA landscape changed? Uh, what's going to change? Uh, g f I. Good question. I mean, I cannot look into a glass bowl, but I remember when I started at some of our board members had already mentioned like an LC is going to be a license to produce. So without an LC or without an environmental footprint to communicate on, you won't have a market in maybe in the world, I think most likely not within Europe. And I think the world will hopefully eventually follow because I do believe it's, uh, it's at least a good initial method of, of making companies accountable to actually reduce the emissions that they're producing and taking accountability for the choices that they make for their production. And I think that's also broader than just feed. Of course, I do believe on a, on all sectors, we can, we should keep companies responsible for the production that they have and or inform the consumer to know what's what's behind it. In that sense, so we can make more informed decisions on that as well. As for, gee, I hope that we have provided a solution where our members and the people that use our database are able to make actual decisions on reducing emissions as well. So ideally, I would see that we would move fully towards primary data so that we know that within the feed sector that people talk to their suppliers, that they make sure that there's no deforestation related towards their production. And a lot of them already claim, of course, that that's not the case. So if we can actually prove that, that would be even better. Um, yeah. So to create a better world in that sense and making sure that people know where they're sourcing from, and that's the sector also follows this and doesn't come up with a new metrics that that forces everyone to do something different in, in three years. That would also be great. You mentioned the geography there. Um, you know, with, with lots of things in sustainability, Europe tends to be the epicenter and then potentially some stuff in the US, the sort of coastal cities especially and the coastal states. Um, is that reflected in, in your work. Are you seeing demand growing from there. Yeah for sure. So yeah, we see most of our coverage for the amount of users and members are part of Europe. And we do see with most non-EU countries that we talk to, it's it's mostly because they try to export to Europe and are faced with legislation, with their with our members saying like, no, we need to have an environmental footprint. So you need to go through to fly. So we do see this kind of regulation in that sense. I'm not sure how it goes from non EU country to non EU country. I'm not sure if there are rules. But I do know that in North America there are quite some uh things developing as well. And I do know, for example, one of our members also has um, an export certification. So they always include a figure from the database for their product on that certification, which they're exporting to all countries, uh, not just Europe. So there you also see that there is an interest and they mentioned to me that there is interest from China to have, for example, these certification, uh, yeah, figures as well. So that does mean that that's happening. We just don't have a direct contact with, uh, with that market at this point. But yeah, it's, it's interesting about China because everybody always seems very negative, but I do think China seems to do an awful lot more than, than we actually think. And I would just like to pick up on the point that you made about, uh, anybody putting, uh, information on paperwork. Certainly, uh, certification is, is often communicated on delivery notes or certificates of assurance, etc.. Do you see a growth in in that kind of behavior for companies to be passing information along? Yeah. Within those that use our database, I know that they're passing that information from their company, from their specific products along to the, to downstream partners. So there is that. And what we do with Jeff is also validating branded data. So that's company specific environmental footprints or product environmental footprints. And because they really stand behind Jeff and Jeff has kind of become a brand name in that sense. We do see that there's a push for it. And therefore people are doing it because they feel like, okay, Jeff is we're not a certification body, but at least there's a name attached to it to be like, okay, this is aligned with what the feed sector does. So there's a lot of value for them to go through our validation to make sure that their data is either in the database or just validated by us to say that its compliance and hence downstream parties can also calculate with our figures and there and the figures that we validated for that company so that it's more integrated in that sense. And so yeah, the main thing that people say, you want to compare apples to apples, pears to pears. So that's one way to try to align it as much as possible in that sense. Yeah. But maybe do you guys see something different in this field about certification? I know it's a I mean, yeah, I mean certification. I mean, a lot of people think certification is expensive. I mean, you know, my expertise lies within palm oil. But I, I think it's a really simple way to pass the information along and it's every day that you need to. So it's all, you know, it's say an example I would give it would be allergens, say twenty years ago, you wouldn't pass on any information about allergens. Now you put that on paperwork. You're all the time referencing things like that. And this has a, you know, like with Rspo certification and the supply chain models, it's, it's a heads up to people in a business and it gives, it gives evidence that this batch is coming in like this, because otherwise it's about head office communicating to head office. And that doesn't always work. It needs to be day to day. So it was just something that I was intrigued about. And I think just related to your doctor, if I may. Uh, was that, uh, that was a question of, well, how are people going to, uh, move the due diligence reference number along and will that appear on paperwork? Because that will be the easiest way to do it. So it, it has been a conversations, uh, I've been having this week. So yeah, it was, I think it's a really good idea because it's, it's day to day evidence against batch codes, uh, if that's what they're doing. Um, and it, and if you are backing it by being able to verify it overall, it doesn't have to be certification. It just, it, it gives a guarantee. I think nothing's perfect, but it gives it a guarantee doesn't it, of some description. Yeah, yeah yeah, I agree. I think it it really helps with the credibility as well. So within JFK, for example, if people want to have data in our database, it is also externally reviewed by a third party. Um, just to make sure that it's not just doing the validation, you know, and not just trying to, uh, make it easier for members or non-members or something like this. So I think it is very helpful. And I think that's also the standard within LCA to have a third party review to make sure that, uh, it's not just your own thing doing it. Yeah. Make it credible. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think that sounds like a nice place to, to wrap things up. Um, thanks, Laura, could you tell everyone where do they need to go to find out more? Of course. Well, first of all, thank you so much for having me and having this great conversation with me as well. Well, it's always great to talk about your flight. You can find us on the global feed, lca dot org, and you can also reach out to us at info at global dot org. If you have any questions or want to get in touch with us or become a member. License the database or license the data in general tool. We're also very open towards partnerships and trying to find a solution. Feed wise, uh, for for downstream partners as well. So happy to get in touch. And thanks again for the opportunity to speak here. Thanks for coming on. Yeah, thanks very much. And, uh, yeah, and thanks to everyone for listening to the Sustainable Commodities podcast. Uh, please like and subscribe and share it on social media and we will see you next time. Thanks a lot. Bye. Thank you.