In many regions and at the planetary scale, human pressures on the environment exceed levels that natural systems can sustain. These pressures are caused by networks of human activities, which often extend across countries and continents due to global trade. This has led to an increasing requirement for methods that enable absolute environmental sustainability assessment (AESA) of anthropogenic systems and which have a basis in life cycle assessment (LCA). Such methods enable the comparison of environmental impacts of products, companies, nations, etc, with an assigned share of environmental carrying capacity for various impact categories. This study is the first systematic review of LCA-based AESA methods and their applications. After developing a framework for LCA-based AESA methods, we identified 45 relevant studies through an initial survey, database searches and citation analysis. We characterized these studies according to their intended application, impact categories, basis of carrying capacity estimates, spatial differentiation of environmental model and principles for assigning carrying capacity. We then characterized all method applications and synthesized their results. Based on this assessment, we present recommendations to practitioners on the selection and use of existing LCA-based AESA methods, as well as ways to perform assessments and communicate results to decision-makers. Furthermore, we identify future research priorities intended to extend coverage of all components of the proposed method framework, improve modeling and increase the applicability of methods. © 2020 The Author(s). 

Aquaculture is receiving increased attention from a variety of stakeholders. This is largely due to its current role in the global food system of supplying more than half of the seafood consumed, and also because the industry continues to steadily expand (UN Food and Agriculture Organization 2018). A recent article in Environmental Research Letters, 'Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: Do we measure it correctly?', by Fry et al (2018a) found that measuring feed conversion efficiency of selected aquatic and terrestrial farmed animals using protein and calorie retention resulted in species comparisons (least to most efficient) and overlap among species dissimilar from comparisons based on widely used weight-based feed conversion ratio (FCR) values. The study prompted spirited discussions among researchers, industry representatives, and others. A group assembled to write a standard rebuttal, but during this process, decided it was best to engage the study's original authors to join the discourse. Through this collaboration, we provide the resultant additional context relevant to the study in order to advance conversations and research on the use of efficiency measures in aquatic and terrestrial animal production systems.