Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems

San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Veneto, Italy
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.95). 03/2007; 61(2):279-86. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602522
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: Recent studies support the hypothesis that plant-based diets are environmentally better than meat-based diets. This study aims to further explore this topic and to compare different environmental impacts resulting from different dietary patterns (omnivorous, vegetarian, vegan) and methods of production (conventional farming and organic agriculture). DESIGN: Three weekly balanced diets, equivalent to one another for energetic and nutrient content, have been planned: an omnivorous one, a vegetarian one and a vegan one. For each one, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method has been applied in order to calculate the environmental impact, expressed in 'points'. INTERVENTIONS: The software we selected to carry out the Inventory Analysis and the Impact Assessment is SimaPro5. The Assessment phase has been conducted using Ecoindicator 99, a damage-oriented method, which analyses the impact according to three large damage categories, each of them subsuming various impact categories.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although water constitutes 71% of the earth's surface, only 0.3% of it is available as fresh water for human use. Moreover, the quality of fresh water in ground and surface systems is of great concern, as potable water needs to have appropriate mineral content. Ground and surface water quality in rural and urban environments is affected by both natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Because of this, water is becoming scarcer as the population increases across the world. Natural processes leading to changes in water quality include weathering of rocks, evapotranspiration, depositions due to wind, leaching from soil, run-off due to hydrological factors, and biological processes in the aquatic environment. These natural processes cause changes in the pH and alkalinity of the water, and also phosphorus loading, increase in fluoride content and high concentrations of sulphates. Anthropogenic factors affecting water quality include impacts due to agriculture, use of fertilizers, manures and pesticides, animal husbandry activities, inefficient irrigation practices, deforestation of woods, aquaculture, pollution due to industrial effluents and domestic sewage, mining, and recreational activities. These anthropogenic influences cause elevated concentrations of heavy metals, mercury, coliforms and nutrient loads. This paper studies the effects of natural processes and human influences in rural and urban aquatic systems. Pollution due to environmental parameters such as heavy metal pollution, heavy metals and bacterial and pathogenic contamination of both urban and rural areas is discussed in detail.
    Frontiers in Life Science 10/2014; 8(1):1-17. DOI:10.1080/21553769.2014.933716 · 0.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    12/2014; 1. DOI:10.3389/fnut.2014.00023
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines how employing the capabilities approach in conceptualizing sustainable development allows reasoning and specifying claims for more sustainable lifestyles. In doing so, it focuses on the example of food consumption because it constitutes an ‘(un)sustainability hotspot’ as well as a paradigmatic example for the tensions between individual lifestyles on the one hand and societal consequences of such lifestyles on the other. The arguments developed in the paper allow rebutting two common objections against claims for individual changes in food consumption. These are, first, that more sustainable food consumption constitutes a societal issue so that asking individuals to behave more sustainably is unnecessary. The second objection argues that such claims infringe on the individuals’ freedom of choice and morally overburden individuals. I first outline a conception of sustainable development that draws on the capabilities approach. Subsequently, I develop a more specific account of what is meant by more sustainable food production and consumption. Finally, I draw on this account to rebut the above-mentioned objections against claims for more sustainable food consumption.
    Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 01/2014; DOI:10.1007/s10806-014-9503-1 · 1.25 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 28, 2014