Content uploaded by Joseph Poore
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph Poore on Nov 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers
Abstract and Figures
The global impacts of food production
Food is produced and processed by millions of farmers and intermediaries globally, with substantial associated environmental costs. Given the heterogeneity of producers, what is the best way to reduce food's environmental impacts? Poore and Nemecek consolidated data on the multiple environmental impacts of ∼38,000 farms producing 40 different agricultural goods around the world in a meta-analysis comparing various types of food production systems. The environmental cost of producing the same goods can be highly variable. However, this heterogeneity creates opportunities to target the small numbers of producers that have the most impact.
Science , this issue p. 987
Figures - uploaded by Joseph Poore
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Joseph Poore
Content may be subject to copyright.
Supplementary resources (3)
... Die Weltkommission verknüpfte in ihrer Ausarbeitung jene Umwelt-und Entwicklungsaspekte und stellte Prinzipien zur intra-und intergenerationalen Verteilungsgerechtigkeit auf (Von Hauff & Kleine, 2014;WCED, 1987). Infolgedessen kann eine Entwicklung laut WCED als nachhaltig angesehen werden, wenn sie "(…) die Bedürfnisse der Gegenwart befriedigt, ohne zu riskieren, dass künftige Generationen ihre eigenen Bedürfnisse nicht befriedigen können" (Hauff, 1987, S. 46 Ferner ist anzumerken, dass der Nachhaltigkeitsbegriff oft unterschiedlich verstanden und eingesetzt wird, denn er bietet als "(…) Leitbild die Gelegenheit, das Unbehagen im Sinne eines «so kann es nicht unbegrenzt weiter gehen» auf den Punkt zu bringen und gleichzeitig nach Möglichkeiten der Umsteuerung zu suchen" (Grunwald & Kopfmüller, 2006, S. 13 (Poore & Nemecek, 2018;Springmann et al., 2016;WWF, 2012;Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012;Bellarby, Foereid, Hastings & Smith, 2008, BAFU, 2006 (Chambers et al., 2007;Beardsworth & Keil, 1991 (Feindt et al., 2019;BMEL, 2016;Heißenhuber et al., 2015;Bajželj et al., 2014). Springmann et al., 2016;Hallström et al., 2015;Bajželj et al., 2014;Garnett, 2011;Sanjoaquin et al., 2004;Appleby et al., 1999;Thorogood et al., 1990 (Poore & Nemecek, 2018;Garnett, 2011;Goodland & Anhang, 2009;Steinfeld et al., 2006;Härdtlein et al., 2000). ...
... Infolgedessen kann eine Entwicklung laut WCED als nachhaltig angesehen werden, wenn sie "(…) die Bedürfnisse der Gegenwart befriedigt, ohne zu riskieren, dass künftige Generationen ihre eigenen Bedürfnisse nicht befriedigen können" (Hauff, 1987, S. 46 Ferner ist anzumerken, dass der Nachhaltigkeitsbegriff oft unterschiedlich verstanden und eingesetzt wird, denn er bietet als "(…) Leitbild die Gelegenheit, das Unbehagen im Sinne eines «so kann es nicht unbegrenzt weiter gehen» auf den Punkt zu bringen und gleichzeitig nach Möglichkeiten der Umsteuerung zu suchen" (Grunwald & Kopfmüller, 2006, S. 13 (Poore & Nemecek, 2018;Springmann et al., 2016;WWF, 2012;Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012;Bellarby, Foereid, Hastings & Smith, 2008, BAFU, 2006 (Chambers et al., 2007;Beardsworth & Keil, 1991 (Feindt et al., 2019;BMEL, 2016;Heißenhuber et al., 2015;Bajželj et al., 2014). Springmann et al., 2016;Hallström et al., 2015;Bajželj et al., 2014;Garnett, 2011;Sanjoaquin et al., 2004;Appleby et al., 1999;Thorogood et al., 1990 (Poore & Nemecek, 2018;Garnett, 2011;Goodland & Anhang, 2009;Steinfeld et al., 2006;Härdtlein et al., 2000). (Mander, Mikk & Külvik,1999). ...
To cope with the challenges of climate change, proactive changes in our habits of consumption are inevitable. Food consumption goes along with a large environmental impact, thus the food we buy yields substantial ecological saving potentials. Sustainable nutrition necessitates a certain willingness to change on side of the consumer, therefore the consumer shares a certain amount of responsibility regarding the market equilibrium. The Resistance to Change (RTC) scale makes a person's refusal towards changes measurable but has yet not been used in the context of nutrition. This thesis examines to what extent the individual resistance to changes correlates with aspects of sustainable nutrition. Regarding operationalization, this study seeks to develop a suitable questionnaire based on theoretical background and optimizes a german version of the RTC scale. To answer the research question, statements of 118 german-speaking adults, collected by an online survey, are statistically analysed with the aid of correlation analysis. Results show, that some aspects of sustainable nutrition-as consumption of animal products-yield weak coherences with RTC. In contrast, there is no relation with organic foods. Moreover, with small effect size, there is a significant negative correlation of the packaging variable and resistance variable observable. Thus, it is assumed that with pronounced RTC, there is less heed to eco-friendly packaging. Also, participants consume less animal but more ecological products, when they stated to be mindful of eco-friendly packaging. The results highlight the assumptions of previous research, that individual-related attributes are of importance regarding sustainable behaviour. For further research, the examination of a potential correlation of environmentally relevant moral values and RTC seems promising. Moreover, the question how far awareness for sustainable diets, paired with willingness to behaviour change, has impact on the individual eating habits, remains auspicious.
... Low-and middle-income countries have shown a considerable increase in demands for animal proteins (Tilman et al., 2011), in turn driving the dynamics in utilizing formerly unused land or sea plots for farming practices around the globe affecting over 30% of the landmass in just six decades (van Vliet et al., 2015;Winkler et al., 2021). Poore and Nemecek (2018) indicate that the production of animal protein has a disproportionally higher environmental impact per calorie than plant-based proteins. Foods farmed in aquatic water bodies have far lower carbon footprints (CF) than land-based production of protein (MacLeod et al., 2020). ...
This work attempts to define metrics for hydrodynamic exposure, using known oceanographic variables to provide a universal site assessment method for mariculture structures. Understanding environmental conditions driving open-ocean mariculture siting is crucial in establishing consistent ocean governance, minimizing adverse environmental impacts, and facilitating economically sustainable farm operations. To provide a metric of oceanic conditions and associated requirements for structural design and operation of aquaculture systems, six Exposure Indices (EI) are proposed that consider physical energy levels related to hydrodynamic forces at a site. Four of the proposed indices consider only environmental conditions, while the other two also consider the dimensions of the gear that is exposed to the external loads. These indices are: Exposure Velocity (EV), Exposure Velocity at Reference Depth (EVRD), Specific Exposure Energy (SEE), Depth-integrated Energy Flux (DEF), Structure-centered Depth-integrated Energy (SDE), and a Structure-centered Drag-to-Buoyancy Ratio (SDBR). While these indices are derived with a focus on aquaculture structures, they may also have applications for estimating biological stressors and operational challenges. The proposed exposure indices were evaluated for a range of known aquaculture sites around the world. A sensitivity analysis was conducted that quantified the relationship between the exposure indices
and storm event return period. At a regional scale, hindcast numerical data for the German Bight combined with calculations of 50-year extreme values were used to calculate and map each proposed index spatially. Resulting maps showed that exposure is not simply a function of distance from shore. The six indices show plausible performance regarding the objective assessment of aquaculture sites. The authors herein present the indices to the aquaculture and ocean engineering communities for discussion, application, and potential adoption of one or more of the proposed indices.
... Fonte: Poore and Nemecek (2018) NB: in questa figura, il calcolo è espresso in anidride carbonica equivalente, o CO₂ eq. Questa unità di misura è necessaria per standardizzare il differente impatto che ogni gas serra ha sul riscaldamento 23 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_16/SR_CAP-and-Climate_IT.pdf ...
... production systems (Foley et al., 2011;Griscom et al., 2017;Poore & Nemecek, 2018). ...
Cover crops in organic cotton systems can offset the carbon loss typically observed in conventional systems. However, their effects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and soil microclimate are poorly understood. Our objective was to investigate the effects of cover crops on soil carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) emissions and soil moisture and temperature dynamics in organic cotton systems. To achieve this, we used static chamber techniques with soil sensors in a field study near College Station, TX, from 2020 to 2022. Cover crops tested were oat (Avena sativa L.), Austrian winter pea (Pisum sativum L.) (AWP), turnip (Brassica rapa subsp. rapa), a mixture of all three, and a fallow control. In the first year of organic transition (2020), mixed species treatment enhanced CO2 emission by 39.6%, 34.4%, and 40% than AWP, turnip, and control, respectively. Compared to the control, N2O emissions were lower in AWP, turnip, and oat treatments by 77%, 57.2%, and 53% in 2020. Weed pressure and drought in 2021 and 2022 neutralized cover crops’ effect on soil GHG emissions. Soils generally acted as net CH4 sinks, but the uptake did not differ among the treatments. Cover crops depleted soil moisture during their growing period, but surface residues helped retain more moisture during the cotton season. Compared to fallow, mixed species and AWP were observed to reduce soil temperature fluctuations. Therefore, in transitioning, organic systems effects of cover crops on soil GHG emissions can vary depending on weather, weed management, and the cover crop types.
... The LF indicates the amount of land used to produce a given food item depending on the agricultural yield, which in turn relies on the local pedoclimatic conditions, the agricultural management intensity, the technological level, and the farming practices implemented. CF and WF values for food items were derived by Petersson et al. (2021) [32], while LF values were derived by Poore and Nemecek (2018) [33]. Food items were grouped under the same category (as further specified in Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials), and the mean as well as median values for each food category were calculated for each footprint. ...
Household food waste accounts for a significant share of total food waste. In 2022, around 1.05 billion tons of food waste were generated—60% of which came from households. In the EU, households generate 54% of the total food waste. In Italy, according to a former diary study, avoidable household food waste accounts for 529.9 g per capita per week. Building on this data, this study assesses the monetary value of food waste at the household level in 6 provinces across the country, considering the prices of food items recorded by the Italian Observatory of market prices. Moreover, the environmental impacts of household food waste (greenhouse gas emissions, water consumed, and land used) were investigated based on existing data from well-grounded scientific literature. The results show that the monetary value of food waste ranges from EUR 357.43 to EUR 404.62 per household per year, corresponding to 5–7% of the average household expenditure for food. The environmental impacts per household per year account for 149 kgCO2eq, which contributes to climate change. In addition, household food waste is responsible for 303,498 L of water consumed and 1426 m2 of land used. The results of this study can be integrated into National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), to integrate food waste reduction into energy savings and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies.
In order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from beef production Uruguayan and New Zealand systems have a significant role to play. Despite the differences, both are exposed to the same threats, i.e. more profitable alternative systems competing for the land, with enhanced production through intensification being a common response, and increasing pressure on the environment. This issue has attracted attention around the world concerning climate change and GHG emissions associated with animal production systems. The comparison using a whole-farm model (OVERSEER®), shows clear differences in GHG emissions, with higher emissions (in carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2 eq) per kilogram of beef on Uruguayan farms (18.4-21.0 kg CO2 eq/beef) compared with New Zealand farms (8-10 kg CO2 eq/beef) as a result of lower production efficiency. However, the emissions per hectare were higher on intensive New Zealand farms (3013-6683 kg CO2 eq/ha/year) than on Uruguayan farms (1895-2226 kg CO2 eq/ha/year) due to high stocking rates and increased inputs. Sensitivity analysis revealed a large effect of methodology and the benefit of using tier 2 factors that account for differences in animal productivity and feed quality. Nitrous oxide emissions factors for animal excreta determined in New Zealand are half of the default IPCC factors, while activity factors for indirect nitrous oxide emissions from excreta-ammonia and N leaching are 50% and 23% respectively. Increased feed conversion efficiency in the more intensive systems was associated with lower GHG intensity but farm systems also need to account for other environmental factors that are more important on a regional or catchment basis.
The study of the environmental impact of agricultural products has significantly grown in recent years, as consumers now demand more information about the product’s footprint in the environment. The aim of this study is to assess the environmental impact of the life cycle phases of tsipouro production, which is one of the traditional products of Greece produced mainly from viticulture. The environmental analysis was performed through the study of eutrophication, global warming, photochemical oxidation and acidification, using the life cycle assessment methodology. The system was studied through fifteen subsystems and a 250 ml bottle of tsipouro, which was the basis of the calculations, was defined as a functional unit. From the results it appears that the process of tsipouro production is the subsystem with the highest energy consumption and the grape cultivation the one with the highest water consumption. In environmental impact the subsystem with the highest contribution is the cultivation of grapes. Also the subsystems production/transportation and use of fertilizers, bottle production/transportation and the process of tsipouro production have a significant contribution. In addition, some literature-based solutions are suggested. Some of the solutions are the use of clearer energy sources, the use of biodiesel and alternative cultivation methods without synthetic fertilizers. The results of this research can be used by tsipouro or similar industries to minimize the environmental impact and focus on the phases that are most involved in it.
Pasture systems for grass-fed beef production in the Gulf Coast region were evaluated for profitability and sustainability over the period 2009/2010 to 2011/2012. May-weaned steers were divided into groups and randomly placed into different pasture systems. Data on input usage, output quantities, and carbon emissions were recorded and analyzed. The least complex grazing system yielded higher profit than the most complex, but the most complex produced the lowest greenhouse gas impact. A trade-off was found between profitability and greenhouse gas impact among the systems.
Feeding late maturing young bulls on high concentrate diets needs adjustment of both animal feeding behaviour and rumen adaptation which can be done by feeding maize silage according to researchers at the National Institute of Agronomic Research, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France who state good economic results are achievable alongside animal welfare.
This study aims to produce multicriteria environmental figures (using Life Cycle Assessment, LCA) associated with socioeconomicindicators for different types of pig units representative of the main French production standards. Eight systems are assessed,defined by their size, the degree of specialization and the location of the pig unit, the slurry management and the pig feedingstrategy. The results are expressed per kilogram live pig produced at the farm level, and the field for Life Cycle Analysis includesproduction and supply of inputs, construction of buildings, pig breeding and management of slurry. These reference standardsprovide a picture of the socioeconomic and environmental performance of French pig production systems and of their variabilitybetween and within systems. The environmental results make it possible to identify the most strategic and easily attainableoptions of improvement. The efficiency of different strategies is evaluated in connection with feed formulation, improvement ofanimal performance, and the implementation of recommended good environmental practices. The socioeconomic indicators showthe various levels of access to the action levers.
In a world with an increasing urban population, analyzing the construction impacts of sanitation infrastructures through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is necessary for defining the best environmental management strategies. The purpose of this research is studying application of the life cycle assessment methodology to Hazelnut production under rain fed farming systems in forest north of Iran. Data were collected from 36 farms by used a face to face questionnaire method during 2013 year in Guilan province. In rain fed farming system, total green house gases emissions for hazelnut production were showed table 2 (66.955 kgCO2eqha-1).
https://hau.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/17326/