Environmental Nutrition: Connecting Health and Nutrition with Environmentally Sustainable Diets 0128116617, 9780128116616

Table of contents :
Content: Part I: Introduction: 1. The diet, health, and environment trilemma / Irana W. Hawkins --
2. Food systems : description and trends / Andrew Berardy, Heidi Lynch and Christopher Wharton --
3. The environmental nutrition model / Joan Sabaté. Part II: Global challenges for environmental nutrition: 4. Natural resource constraints on the food system / D.L. Marrin --
5. Unsustainable societal demands on the food system / Linnea I. Laestadius and Julia A. Wolfson --
6. Food production and dietary patterns / Heidi Lynch, Andrew Berardy and Christopher Wharton --
7. Environmental degradation : an undesirable output of the food system / Harry Aiking. Part III: Tools and approaches: 8. Environmental nutrition and LCA / Nathan Pelletier, Robert Parker and Patrik Henriksson. Part IV: Defining healthy and sustainable diets and their potential to address environmental nutrition challenges: 9. Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data / Stephen Clune --
10. Determinants of sustainable diets / Joan Sabaté and Tony Jehi --
11. Can diets be both healthy and sustainable? Solving the dilemma between healthy diets versus sustainable diets / Marco Springmann --
12. Could ecologically sound human nutrition include the consumption of animal products? / Jan Deckers --
13. Healthy diets as a climate change mitigation strategy / Michael Clark --
14. Food policy : where does environmental nutrition fit in? / Trent Grassian --
15. Sustainable diets for a food-secure future / Claire Fitch Bowdren and Raychel Santo --
16. Feeding a growing population within planetary boundaries : a three-step strategy: Identifying the fierce necessity of "how?" in the fierce urgency of now / Helen Harwatt.

Citation preview

ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION

ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION Connecting Health and Nutrition with Environmentally Sustainable Diets Edited by

 JOAN SABATE

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom 525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-12-811660-9 For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals Publisher: Charlotte Cockle Acquisition Editor: Megan Ball Editorial Project Manager: Michael Lutz Production Project Manager: Nilesh Kumar Shah Cover Designer: Vicky Pearson Esser Typeset by SPi Global, India

Contributors Harry Aiking Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Andrew Berardy Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States Claire Fitch Bowdren The Better Food Foundation, Washington, DC, United States Michael Clark Oxford Martin School and Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Stephen Clune S-RAD, Sustainability Research and Design, Canberra, Australia Jan Deckers School of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom Trent Grassian SSPSSR, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom Helen Harwatt Animal Law and Policy Fellow, Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States Irana W. Hawkins Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, United States Patrik Henriksson Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden Tony Jehi Center for Nutrition, Healthy Lifestyle and Disease Prevention, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, United States Linnea I. Laestadius Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States Heidi Lynch Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA, United States D.L. Marrin Water Sciences & Insights, Encinitas, CA, USA Robert Parker Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada

xi

xii

Contributors

Nathan Pelletier University of British Columbia—Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada Joan Sabate Center for Nutrition, Healthy Lifestyle and Disease Prevention, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, United States Raychel Santo Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Department of Environmental Health & Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States Marco Springmann Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Christopher Wharton Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States Julia A. Wolfson University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, United States

Preface Environmental nutrition emerges from the recognition of the complex interactions of the food systems with the health of the planet and the populations that share its resources. In this book, we explore the connection between diet, environmental sustainability, and human health. Current food systems and the food choices of many cultures are major contributors to our most pressing health and environmental issues. This book addresses the growing environmental and health concerns that appear to be linked to food production and consumption. The environmental impacts attributed to the production of food are formidable. Agriculture, husbandry and fishing are responsible for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the use of 70% of all fresh water resources. The over-application of fertilizers, other chemicals, and antibiotics has led to the pollution of surface and ground water, soil, and air, and to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. Nourishing a growing world population while balancing what the Earth can provide and absorb is increasingly recognized as a major global challenge. Yet, the environmental and health problems associated with food production are foreseen to increase, since in many regions of the world food consumption is shifting toward the “western” pattern of high animal products and more processed foods. Such food patterns contribute to a range of costly health problems, including overweight and obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and various kinds of cancer. Consequently, the population disease burden is expected to worsen. Yet, changes in land use and global warming are contributing to food insecurity and malnutrition in some regions of the world. By definition, a “sustainable” diet should use the Earth’s natural resources without exhausting or destroying them, and should be maintainable in the long term. This includes staying within the Earth’s biophysical capacity (i.e., what the planet can sustain in terms of resource provision and absorption of wastes). The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations defined sustainable diets as “those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations.” Balancing the requirements of food supply, health, and the physical environment—the health-environment-diet trilemma—is of great

xiii

xiv

Preface

importance and requires new priorities for agriculture, environmental sciences, and public health. There are a range of solution-orientated approaches that can concurrently address the diet-health-environment trilemma. Among these is the development of food production methods that are resource efficient and have less environmental impact. Drastically reducing food losses and waste along the supply chain, and shifting food choices and diet patterns of individuals and populations are also vital. Changing the way food is produced is not sufficient to address global sustainability goals. While current work in this area mainly focuses on supply side measures, this book largely focuses on demand side solutions as this holds a significant potential for change. Addressing food consumption patterns, food losses, and waste, along with agricultural technology improvements, is considered crucial for enabling wide-scale adoption of sustainable diets. This book presents all three components, but explores in more detail consumption patterns and food waste, as these are determined by individuals and communities. This book not only seeks to increase our understanding of the interrelatedness of the issues but also intends to aid in the creation of new solutions. The book has four sections: introduction, challenges, tools, and solutions. To begin we provide an overview and explore how the complex relationships within food systems can be better understood through an environmental nutrition model (Chapters 1–3). The challenges of inputs, drivers, and outputs of the industrialized food system are described in Chapters 4–7. The life cycle assessment of foods and diets follows (Chapters 8 and 9) and is of importance for research and selecting food choices. Chapters 10 and 11 report the evidence on healthy and sustainable diets. Chapters 12–16 address the social, ethical, cultural, and policy challenges and solutions that would be needed to implement a large-scale shift toward sustainable diets. We suggest that these changes would reduce the environmental impacts of food systems, and concomitantly contribute to food availability and food security, foster adequate nutrient provision, and improve population health outcomes. This book is intended primarily for professionals in food, nutrition, agricultural, and environmental sciences; for researchers, and those interested in food policy; and for academics who teach graduate courses on these topics. Nonprofessionals may also find this book of interest as we have made the effort to keep the language relatively nontechnical. Joan Sabate

Acknowledgments The publication of a book is hardly ever the effort of a single person. And this book is no exception. The work and strength of multiple individuals produced this book. The book’s conceptual framework was developed in collegiate conversations with Helen Harwatt and the late Sam Soret. I am very grateful for the dedication of Helen Harwatt who identified a number of potential contributors. I express my sincere appreciation to all the chapter authors. Their expertise across scientific disciplines has expanded the content and rigor of this volume. And I would like to thank Ujue Fresan, Abigail Clarke, and Janice Hilton for providing helpful comments and edits to some chapters. Special thanks goes to Laura Moore for administrative support. I gratefully acknowledge the support from the editorial managers at Elsevier assigned to this project. Joan Sabate

xv

Prologue Hippocrates might have been only partially correct ages ago when he allegedly said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” Society has entered an era in which food production, processing, and consumption might not be the medicine he envisioned. As a general rule today, the opposite could be closer to the truth. What’s not debatable is that food production and processing systems affect human health and the environment. There is an urgent need to understand and work in the space between food, nutrition, health, and the environment. The evidence is abundant and compelling. The food industry writ large is a central and influential feature of modern life. Roughly 50% of the world’s assets, 50% of all employment, and 50% of consumer expenditures are related to the food system in some form or fashion. At the same time, one in five deaths worldwide is linked to poor diet. Clearly, we all have a vested interest in ecologically sustainable and nutritionally sound food systems, which in turn support household income, quality of life, and our collective health status. Emerging information on the ecological cost of contemporary food production is consistent and the trends are sobering. Aquatic dead zones in the northern Gulf of Mexico fisheries are linked to excessive nutrient farm runoff from the Mississippi watershed. Poorly conceived aquaculture places entire ecosystems at risk. Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy and beef cattle operations exacerbate climate change. Industrial hog farm waste lagoons foul local communities. There is conflict in almost every country where reports are available among and between industry, agriculture, and suburban residents all thirsting for water. Industrialized and transition countries suffer from an increasing incidence rate of chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and metabolic conditions, which are largely a result from processed foods. These challenges and others are mainly rooted in the modern food enterprise and consumer preferences. Let’s be clear, these challenges are predictable and amenable to intervention. Our collective future ironically lies in the choices made by individual consumers. Sadly, taken as a whole, we are largely uninformed and ignorant to our potential as positive change agents. Every parent I know optimizes the health and future of their children as a sacred responsibility. Why would anyone knowingly compromise a child’s future? For this reason, I admire this book and the evidence it shares. Our job

xvii

xviii

Prologue

as informed individuals is to translate the science and research provided in this text into policy and actionable steps that others can take, within their means, to bend the arc of the food system toward sustainable healthy diets and nutrition choices that are accessible, affordable, and harmonized to local culture. What might this action look like in practice? Consider the edible schoolyards I visited in a hurricane-devastated Louisiana. A local school district in post-Katrina New Orleans had introduced the idea of an edible schoolyard—a concept it imported from San Francisco. Participating schools promoted healthy eating by encouraging children to grow their own crops on school property. After harvest, the children were taught how to prepare and cook meals with the vegetables. These meals were nutritionally rich and might not otherwise have been accessible to the children. School-based gardens represent an inexpensive activity that brings our children closer to nature and enables students to interact with each other in a meaningful and physically productive manner. This program is relatively easy to administer, and is affordable, and harmonized to local culture. Changes need not be drastic and there is some glimmer of hope in the form of emerging leadership. Miguel McKelvey, cofounder of the shared office space company WeWork, announced in July 2018 that the company would no longer serve meat products at corporate events. This decision will save an estimated 16.7 billion gallons of water, 445.1 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, and over 15 million animals by 2023. This outcome is achieved by providing vegetarian options at meal events to staff and customers. This example is private sector leadership in action. Academicians can also do more. To that end, I find the U.S. particularly puzzling. Roughly two-thirds of adults and one-third of children are either overweight or obese in the U.S., a country where almost 20% of gross domestic product is spent on healthcare. A large fraction of that cost is related to metabolic diseases. At the same time, knowledge about nutrition is not required to receive a degree in most professional health programs. There should be a national campaign, starting with the health professions, that requires diet and nutrition to be taught within the standard curriculum. I envision relevant credentialing exam questions on these subjects. Part of this effort would include an evaluation of the environmental opportunity costs associated with representative diets. Health professionals are some of the most trusted members of society. They are uniquely suited to normalize

Prologue

xix

and socialize conversations related to diet and environment with individual consumers. Environment, health, and dietary issues are profoundly local. Consumers play an important role by voting with their pocketbooks and through their choices made in the kitchen. While many people, particularly those living with limited resources, don’t have a choice, many still do. We observe incremental changes to perceptions of food and nutrition happening in schoolyards, in corporate social responsibility initiatives, and perhaps in the future of academic enterprise. We should do the same for home cooks. I close by sharing a familiar story of the three sisters of agriculture: maize, beans, and squash. This story is a classic case of intercropping that was developed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years ago. When planted together, maize grows quickly to provide a stalk for the bean plant to grow on. While maize depletes soil nitrogen, beans fix atmospheric nitrogen and replenish it. The shade provided by the beans and maize creates a suitable microclimate for the squash. The three sisters provide a bonanza of nutrients. Maize provides carbohydrates and some amino acids; beans provide many required amino acids, as well as dietary fiber, vitamins B2 and B6, zinc, iron, manganese, iodine, potassium, and phosphorus; and squash provides vitamin A. I believe the three sisters are what Hippocrates had in mind: a sustainable balance between the environment and human nutritional needs. Times have changed, however, and perhaps there is a need for a fourth sibling: leadership. Our efforts would benefit from thought leaders and policy makers who can carry the message of environmental sustainability and stewardship into every kitchen. In the end, individual members of society will ultimately drive change, as they have in every other meaningful social development. I applaud Editor Dr. Joan Sabate for his commitment and perseverance to shine a light on the interface of food, nutrition, health, and the environment. The loss of his key collaborator, Dr. Samuel Soret, through an unforeseen illness, is a trauma that we all share. Dr. Soret would be delighted to know that the seeds he planted years ago have germinated into this critical work. David T. Dyjack National Environmental Health Association, Denver, CO, United States

CHAPTER 1

The diet, health, and environment trilemma Irana W. Hawkins

Introduction During the past century, human activity has stressed and pushed the limits of the natural environment while food systems and food choices became a major contributor to environmental degradation and poor health outcomes. The industrialized food system along with food choices—whether they are intentional or a consequence of policies or food environments—critically and simultaneously impact the health and well-being of individuals and the natural environment. Hence, the term “diet-environment-health trilemma” has been used to draw attention to the quandaries created by these seemingly disparate entities (Tilman and Clark, 2014). Though the industrialized food system has contributed more calories for consumption over time (World Health Organization [WHO] and Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2002), 800 million people suffer from undernutrition (United Nations Systems Standing Committee on Nutrition [UNSSCN], 2017). One hundred and fifty-nine (159) million children in the world under 5 years of age have stunted growth patterns, while 50 million are wasted (UNSSCN, 2017). Conversely, nearly 2 billion people on the planet are overweight and 500 million are obese (UNSSCN, 2017). Globally, heart disease and stroke—both diet-related chronic diseases—are the leading causes of mortality (WHO, 2017a, b, c, d, e). Type 2 diabetes and obesity are chronic diseases that can be prevented and ameliorated with a healthful diet along with physical activity— but have reached epidemic levels (Chen et al., 2012; McMacken and Shah, 2017; The 2015 Global Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2017; TurnerMcGrievy et al., 2017). Eating in excess of one’s energy needs not only contributes to obesity and related comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension—but also to greenhouse gas emissions and excessive resource use (Walpole et al., 2012; Underwood and Zahran, 2016). The industrialized food system contributes Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00001-1

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

3

4

Environmental nutrition

to biodiversity loss, deforestation, the degradation of land and soil, climate change, eutrophication, dead zones, and food insecurity (FAO, 2006). Climate change in turn negatively impacts public health in numerous ways and includes, but is not limited to, the increased intensity, duration, and frequency of wildfires; drought; sea level rise; extreme weather events including extreme heat, extreme precipitation, and flooding; increased vector-borne diseases; degraded water and air quality; increased allergens; and food insecurity (American Public Health Association, 2017). Excessive heat and extreme weather events in turn negatively impact crops, animal agriculture, and fisheries (Melillo et al., 2014). This chapter will discuss the nexus and challenges posed by the dietenvironment-health trilemma. First, the concept of “ecological overshoot,” or the excessive use of natural resources that are consumed before they can be naturally replenished within a year’s time will be discussed (World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2017). An overview of our planetary boundaries will follow where an emphasis is placed on the role of industrialized agriculture in biodiversity loss, land use changes, water and energy use, and nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Next, the role of food systems and the burden of diet-related chronic diseases will be delineated that includes obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and antibiotic resistance. Altogether, the diet-environment-health trilemma not only contributes to jeopardizing our “safe operating space on the planet” (Steffen et al., 2015a), but impacts the quality and longevity of human lives too.

The increased use of natural resources As a species, humans have been successful in the ability to procreate and survive. It took thousands of years for the human population to reach 1 billion—but only 200 years to reach 7 billion (American Museum of Natural History, 2016). The global population stands at 7.6 billion people and is projected to increase to, 9.8 billion by 2050, and 11.2 billion by 2100, respectively (United Nations, 2017). Life expectancy is expected to rise globally from 71 years of age (2014–2015) to 77 by 2045–2050 (United Nations, 2017). It is estimated that there are 83 million more people on the planet every year, with 60% of the world’s population living in Asia, followed by 17% in Africa, 10% in Europe, 9% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 6% in North America and Oceana, respectively (United Nations, 2017). China and India are the most populous countries in the world at 1.4 and 1.3 billion people, respectively (United Nations, 2017). Those living in the least

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

5

developed countries (48 countries including island nations) comprised 13% of the global population in 2015 and will grow to 20% of the global population by 2050 (United Nations, 2016). The number of persons displaced by conflict continues to rise as an unprecedented 65 million were displaced in 2016 (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2017). With a growing population and with populations that face economic strife and tragic hardships, it is critical to protect natural resources and the integrity of the Earth System. Reducing population growth as a strategy to control resource utilization may not offer the expediency necessary to protect ecosystems and natural resources (Bradshaw and Cook, 2014). Therefore, strategies to reduce anthropogenic impact on the natural environment must also include conserving and reducing the use of resources altogether—along with a paradigm shift to renewable energy sources and changes to the industrialized food system (Bradshaw and Cook, 2014; Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2010). Additionally, where a child is born is important in determining its lifetime contribution to resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon legacy of a child born in the United States (based on average carbon dioxide emissions/equivalents per person per year) is estimated at 4.5 times that of a child born in Japan, 7 times that of a child born in China, 85 times that of a child born in Nigeria, and 168 times that of a child born in Bangladesh (Murtaugh and Schlax, 2009).

Ecological overshoot It is obvious that humans cannot live without water and food and that our lives are compromised without the resources of the Earth that provide medicines, shelter, and necessary textiles. However, the rate at which humans are excessively using and degrading the Earth’s biocapacity is alarming. Over the past 46 years, humanity has been using more resources altogether—and more resources than can be naturally replenished in a year, which has been coined “Earth Overshoot” (Global Footprint Network, 2017a). Unfortunately, “Earth Overshoot Day” happens sooner each year: August 2, 2017; August 4, 2015; August 15, 2007; November 27, 1973; and December 21, 1971 (Global Footprint Network, 2017b). However, comparing dates over time may be less effective than understanding the gravity and totality of the biomass that’s being used (Global Footprint Network, 2017b). As supply cannot keep up with demand, humans are outstripping the regenerative biocapacity of natural resources by 50% as a result of

6

Environmental nutrition

increased land use, habitat transformation, habitat fragmentation, destructive agriculture and forestry practices, creating infrastructure, overusing ecosystems, overexploiting species due to hunting and overfishing, introducing invasive species that compete with and eliminate endemic species, and climate change (Galli et al., 2014).

The Anthropocene The “Anthropocene” is a geological and ecological term used to describe the current era where the Earth System has been domineered by humans such that natural forces have been disturbed to a point of uncertainty—as well as the negative outcomes that will impact future generations (Steffen et al., 2007). The Anthropocene has been divided into two phases: The Industrial Era (1800–1945), and the second stage known as the “Great Acceleration” from 1945 to 2010 (Steffen et al., 2007; Steffen et al., 2015b). The term Great Acceleration captures the impact of socioeconomic endeavors on the Earth System (Steffen et al., 2015b). Socioeconomic indicators have sharply increased since 1950: Overall population and urban populations, energy use, fertilizer use, water use, large dams, paper production, telecommunications, transportation, foreign direct investment, and real GDP (Steffen et al., 2015b). Similarly, the Earth System indicators also followed a steep incline including large increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, stratospheric ozone, surface temperature, ocean acidification, marine fish capture, shrimp aquaculture, nitrogen over use, tropical forest loss, domesticated land use, and terrestrial biosphere degradation (Steffen et al., 2015b).

Planetary boundaries Recent data confer that the Earth System is now functioning in a state that is becoming increasingly inhospitable to humanity due to anthropogenic activity (Steffen and Eliott, 2004). The planetary boundaries framework offers an understanding of how humans impact both the limitations of finite natural resources and how human activity impacts the limits of the Earth System (Steffen et al., 2015a). Fig. 1 identifies the nine planetary boundaries that have been identified: biosphere integrity including biodiversity; climate change; biochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus overuse); freshwater use; ocean acidification; atmospheric aerosol loading; stratospheric ozone depletion; novel entities (persistent chemical pollution); and land system changes. Biosphere integrity and climate change are the two core boundaries

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

7

Fig. 1 The status of the planetary boundaries. (Reprinted with the permission from Steffen, W., Richardson K., Rockstro€m, J., et al., 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223), 1259855-1–1259855-10. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 (web archive link).)

that are integrated throughout the entire Earth System. Biosphere integrity and climate change are directly impacting each other and facilitate how the other boundaries operate, while being impacted by the other boundaries as well (Steffen et al., 2015a). The green color in the center of the diagram notes “safe zones” where there is a low likelihood that the resilience of the Earth System will be impacted (Steffen et al., 2015a). The yellow color indicates an increased risk of uncertainly seen with land-system changes and climate change. The red zones indicate areas of high risk and great uncertainty as seen within biosphere integrity and specifically, genetic diversity loss (Steffen and Eliott, 2004).

Biodiversity loss In the planetary boundaries framework, genetic diversity pertains to all of the diverse forms of life and their capacity to offer resiliency within the Earth System (Steffen et al., 2015a). Additionally, the biosphere offers a range of critical functions for ecosystems (Steffen et al., 2015a). As this planetary

8

Environmental nutrition

boundary has been transgressed, restoring biodiversity is crucial to biosphere integrity and the Earth System. The anthropogenic impact on biodiversity far exceeds background rates, as scientists note a “Sixth Mass Extinction” or a “modern extinction crisis” is underway (Ceballos et al., 2015). The seriousness of this problem cannot be overstated. Biodiversity contributes to the functions, stability, and resilience of the Earth System (Cardinale et al., 2012; Steffen et al., 2015a). A review of over 1700 scientific papers demonstrated strong evidence that biodiversity loss reduces ecosystem services and resources, while biodiverse ecosystems strengthen over time (Cardinale et al., 2012). In conjunction with ecosystems, biodiversity offers countless essential services that support our lives that include, but are not limited to, climate regulation; water flow and purification; erosion prevention; infectious disease, vector-borne disease, and pest control; improved air quality; carbon sequestration and carbon storage; protection from or moderation of extreme weather events; nutrient cycling; soil fertility; pollination; and food and medicines, not to mention our spiritual, cultural, and physical well-being (Chivian and Bernstein, 2010; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In a world of rapid technological changes, we may overlook the fact that medications today are still derived from or modeled after nature (Chivian and Bernstein, 2010).

Measuring biodiversity loss and land use changes The Living Planet Index measures the abundance of biodiversity of over 3700 vertebrate species and identified a 58% decline between 1970 and 2012 (World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2016). Data analyzed from The International Union for Conservation of Nature (the most comprehensive assessment of globally threatened biodiversity) indicated that despite some bright spots in conservation care in Fiji, Mauritius, Seychelles, Tonga, and the Cook Islands, most regions around the globe including Australia, China, Southeast Asia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and the United States negatively impacted the conservation of birds, mammals, and amphibians (Rodrigues et al., 2014). The overarching threats to conservation included changes in land use by way of agriculture and logging, hunting, and invasive species (Rodrigues et al., 2014). Whether it be the destruction of tropical forests for palm oil plantations (Gaveau et al., 2016) or to grow soy for animal feed (World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2014), agriculture and food choices are central factors in biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. Livestock

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

9

account for the largest anthropogenic use of land in the world (FAO, 2006)—while over three-quarters of the soy grown globally is used for animal feed to fuel the increased production and consumption of animal products; thus, soy production has tripled since 1970 (World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2014). In the United States, two of the top three uses of land are grassland pasture and rangeland, and cropland (Bigelow and Borchers, 2017). Vast amounts of the North American prairies gave way to soy, eliminating the biodiversity offered by the prairies—placing the remaining prairies in a precarious state (World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2014). The United States along with Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Paraguay produce 93% of the world’s soy (World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2014). In the United States, only 34% of plants that are grown feed humans while 67% are used to feed animals where inefficiencies have long been noted (Cassidy et al., 2013).

Threats to plant diversity Plants play a tremendous role in biodiversity and sustaining the Earth System along with contributing to the resilience of ecosystems (Corlett, 2016). Plants are used by humans for a myriad of uses such as medicines, food, fuel, materials, and environmental care such as preventing erosion, remediation, etc. Globally, over 17,000 plants are used for medicines while over 5500 are used by humans for food and over 3600 are fed to animals (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, 2016). According to the 2016 State of World’s Plants Report, “10 out of 14 of the world’s biomes have seen a decrease in vegetation productivity between 2000 and 2013”. An average of 10%–25% of vegetation was lost during this time while 30% of mangroves were lost over the past three decades due to human activity including shrimp farming. Overall, tropical forests have incurred the greatest losses with the conversion to farmland or pasture as the driver of deforestation (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, 2016). Agricultural biodiversity, known as agrobiodiversity, is key to not only ecosystem resilience but also to food security as the genetic diversity of plants and heirloom/indigenous seeds can withstand perturbations such as environmental changes and disease while offering a wide array of nutrients along with a range of unique flavors (Pautasso et al., 2013; Khoury et al., 2014; Biodiversity International, 2015). Overall, destructive agricultural practices including overgrazing, agrichemicals, monocropping (planting one crop

10

Environmental nutrition

season after season), and intensive agriculture drive the extinction of plants where recently the increased risk of extinction of over 25 species of wild rice and wheat along with over 40 species of wild yams was documented (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). Climate change will likely render numerous crops extinct as well (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, 2016). As monocropping is widespread in the industrialized food system, the majority of our food calories now come from only a few plants and animals (Khoury et al., 2014; Biodiversity International, 2017).

Soil: The biodiversity under our feet Soil is a complex, finite resource that contains a large part of the world’s biodiversity and is referred to as “the factory of life” (European Commission, 2010). The role of soil is fundamental to food security, ecosystem services, erosion control, plant productivity, clean water, clean air, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, etc. (European Commission, 2010; Orgiazzi et al., 2016). The loss of biodiversity in soil communities disrupts and impairs ecosystem functions that include declines in plant species diversity; carbon sequestration; the decomposition of plant litter, and the reincorporation of nitrogen into plant tissues and subsequent increase in phosphorus loss (Wagg et al., 2014). As over one-third of soils around the globe have been degraded, scientists are quite concerned about the long-term consequences, which will drastically impact overall production (FAO and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, 2015). Anthropogenic degradation of soil includes destructive farming practices, land clearing, deforestation, biofuel use, pollution and nutrient pollution, acid rain, overgrazing, and the destruction of biodiversity above ground (Orgiazzi et al., 2016). Eighty percent of food production has resulted in deforestation that has negatively impacted soils (Orgiazzi et al., 2016). Lastly, creating healthy soil can increase the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere and can be an important contribution to climate change mitigation (Shiva et al., 2017; Biodiversity International, 2017).

Declining biodiversity in oceans and waterways The Marine Living Planet Index noted an overall population decline of 49% from 1970 to 2012 (World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2015). Marine life, waterways, and specialized ecosystems such as reefs and estuaries offer critical ecosystem services, but human activity is increasingly disturbing and deteriorating their functions (Worm et al., 2006). Water quality and the resilience of coastal and large marine ecosystems decline with decreased biodiversity while

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

11

conversely restoring biodiversity strengthens these ecosystems (Worm et al., 2006). While it was reported that over 31% of the world’s fish stocks have been overfished to biologically unsustainable levels (FAO, 2016), the data do not include accounts of discarded bycatch, illegal fisheries, unreported catches, or smaller-scale commercial and artisanal fisheries, which altogether may underreport the extent of the problem (Pauly and Zeller, 2016).

Climate change With the measurement of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide at over 407 ppm (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2017), the Earth System has reached a new level of anthropogenic emissions and changes to the climate (World Meteorological Organization, 2017). The years 2015 and 2016 were the warmest years on record, corresponding with rising carbon dioxide levels (World Meteorological Organization, 2017). Hurricanes and wildfires cause massive destruction around the globe. Some parts of the world are now wetter than average and flooding ensues whereas other parts of the world experience extreme heat and drought (World Meteorological Organization, 2017). Nearly 23 million people have been displaced by climate or weather-related events between 2007 and 2014 (Norwegian Refugee Council and Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2015). More people in low- and middle-income countries have been displaced because of extreme weather events during 2008–2016 than those living in high-income countries (Richards and Bradshaw, 2017). Arctic Sea ice extent is below average, and global sea surface temperatures are rising (World Meteorological Organization, 2017). Climate change is expected to intensify the magnitude and frequency of such circumstances. When assessing global greenhouse gas emissions by sector, agriculture, forestry, and other land use lead the way in a near tie with electricity and heat production at 24% and 25%, respectively (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014). Combined, they contribute to half of global carbon emissions (US EPA, 2017). The seminal publication Livestock’s Long Shadow highlighted the role of the livestock industry in global greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation and found that overall the livestock industry contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than other industries including transportation (FAO, 2006). However, other experts calculated that the report underestimated emissions (Goodland and Anhang, 2009).

12

Environmental nutrition

The principal well-mixed greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), which contribute to climate change, have substantially increased since 1950 (United States Global Change Research Program, 2017). The average concentration of carbon dioxide increased by 40% in the Industrial Era, while methane concentrations have increased by a factor of 2.5 since 1950 (United States Global Change Research Program, 2017). Land clearing for agriculture and other types of deforestation along with the degradation of soils and the use of fossil fuels in industrial agriculture substantially contribute to carbon dioxide emissions (United States Global Change Research Program, 2017). Nearly two-thirds of methane emissions are from anthropogenic sources, including mining, natural gas extraction, animal husbandry and agriculture, and wetland emissions (United States Global Change Research Program, 2017). Additionally, some studies have documented that methane from livestock emissions in the United States exceeds methane emissions from the oil and gas industry (Miller et al., 2013; Wecht et al., 2014). Synthetic fertilizers used in agriculture contribute to the growing rate of global mean nitrous oxide emissions (United States Global Change Research Program, 2017).

Nitrogen and phosphorus Also known as “nutrient pollution” (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017), the excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus in the natural environment are staggering and contribute to environmental degradation (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017; Lu and Tian, 2017). The planetary boundary for biochemical flows has been transgressed largely by way of nitrogen and phosphorus use in agriculture (Steffen et al., 2015a). Since 1961, nitrogen used as a fertilizer per cropland area increased eightfold where phosphorus use increased threefold (Lu and Tian, 2017). In 2013, China, India, United States, Brazil, and Pakistan were among the top five users of nitrogen fertilizer in the world where China, India, Brazil, United States, and Canada used the most phosphorus fertilizer (Lu and Tian, 2017). Dead zones are areas in waterways in which oxygen has been depleted to the point where marine life dies and only a few organisms can survive in the hypoxic conditions (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009). The number of dead zones in the world has doubled since the 1960s as a result of burning fossil fuels and agricultural fertilizers (Diaz and Rosenburg, 2008). The increased precipitation due to climate change will increase nitrogen loading in the continental United States that will negatively impact water quality (Sinha et al., 2017).

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

13

Water and drought The agriculture sector uses the largest percentage of ground and surface water in the United States (Schaible, 2017) and is also a major contributor of water use around the globe (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2011). Diets comprising meat require more water, which was been noted at regional and global levels (Marlow et al., 2009; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012; Jalava et al., 2014). In fact, shifting diets from meat based to whole plant foods would account for a global green water (rainwater) savings of 21% while saving 14% of the blue water (surface and ground water) used in food production ( Jalava et al., 2014). However, the water saving is more impressive in water-scarce regions such as the Middle East, Central and East Asia, and some Latin American countries ( Jalava et al., 2014). Approximately 2.7 billion people throughout the world live in regions where severe water scarcity occurs at least one month per year (Hoekstra et al., 2012). With excessive heat and population growth, the number of drought exposure events is projected to increase by 1.4 billion persons by the end of the century (Watts et al., 2015).

Energy use in agriculture Industrial agriculture and food systems are largely dependent on fossil fuels for the production of food by way of machinery and mechanization, agrichemicals, transportation, food processing, food packaging, assimilating waste, etc. (Shiva et al., 2017; Neff et al., 2011). In the United States, fossil fuel and the energy used by the food system is substantial (Canning et al., 2017). The energy used for food accounted for over half of the total increased energy use in the United States between 1997 and 2002 (Canning et al., 2017). In an era where oil reserves will dip and extracting new resources is not only expensive but also has a detrimental impact on the natural environment, reducing energy use by food systems is imperative (Neff et al., 2011). An analysis of the US food system found that nearly 14% of carbon dioxide emissions were linked to food consumption. Additionally, if consumers in the United States even minimally shifted toward consuming a healthier diet, food system energy use could drop by 3%. Furthermore, adopting a nutrient-dense “energy-efficient” diet that included wholesome plant foods dropped energy use as measured in British thermal units (BTUs) by 74% compared to the baseline diet that reflected what the average American eats (Canning et al., 2017).

14

Environmental nutrition

Health and food systems: From infectious disease to chronic disease The industrialized food system and accompanying highly processed foods and animal products contribute not only to the degradation of the natural environment, but also to the degradation of human health and years of potential life lost (Springmann et al., 2016). Despite some decline, infectious diseases still plague developing countries at unacceptably high rates (Dye, 2014), while noncommunicable diseases or chronic diseases are the leading cause of mortality globally (World Health Organization, 2017a). Heart disease and stroke claim the most lives across the globe annually, while overall chronic diseases accounted for 70% of deaths (World Health Organization, 2017b). With nutrition transitions, increasing incomes, and the disappearance of fresh food markets along with the increased consumption of ultraprocessed food, fast foods, and animal products, more chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity have been noted around the world and in developing countries (Popkin et al., 2012). Hence, developing countries suffer from both the burdens of infectious diseases and the rise of chronic diseases. Globalization and trade policies that favor unhealthful foods are implicated in the rise of unhealthful foods that are available to consumers along with changing social norms and demographic changes (Popkin et al., 2012; Costa-Font and Mas, 2016).

Obesity Obesity is a global epidemic and is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, certain cancers, musculoskeletal disorders, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, etc. (WHO, 2016). A systematic global analysis of overweight and obesity among adults and children between the years 1980 and 2015 revealed the rates of obesity have doubled in 73 countries around the world, while there was a general increase in all countries (The 2015 Global Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2017). A high body mass index (BMI) that denotes excessive body weight was attributed to 4 million deaths worldwide in 2015 along with 120 million disability-adjusted years of life (The 2015 Global Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2017). Cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the leading cause of death related to a high BMI with diabetes being the second leading cause of death (The 2015 Global Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2017). In many countries, the rate of increase in obesity among children was greater than the increase in adults (The 2015 Global Burden of Disease

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

15

Collaborators, 2017). The highest level of age-standardized obesity was found among children in the United States, while the lowest was noted among children in Bangladesh (The 2015 Global Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2017). The greatest number of obese children live in India and China (the largest populations on the planet), while the greatest number of obese adults live in the United States and China (The 2015 Global Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2017). Using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data in the United States, researchers forecast that 51% of the US population will be obese by 2030, whereas severe obesity will nearly double to a rate of 9% (Finkelstein et al., 2012). Even reducing obesity by 1% reduces annual medical expenditures by $4.7 billion (Finkelstein et al., 2012). If obesity prevalence remained at 15%, which was the Healthy People 2020 target, a cost savings of $1.9 trillion due to obesity-related medical expenses could have been realized (Finkelstein et al., 2012).

Obesity, resource use, and greenhouse gas emissions Over 3% of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States was associated with the increased prevalence of obesity and overweight between 1995 and 2013 (Underwood and Zahran, 2016). With a higher BMI, there are increased energy (or biomass) requirements (Walpole et al., 2012). Although North America accounts for 6% of the world’s population, it accounts for 34% of biomass use due to obesity (Walpole et al., 2012). In the United States, the energy required to maintain overweight biomass corresponds to the energy requirements of 23 million adults (Walpole et al., 2012). If all countries had an average BMI similar to the United States (28.5 in 2005), biomass use would increase by 20% and biomass use due to obesity would increase by 434% (Walpole et al., 2012). Conversely, if the world had an average BMI of 22.9 like Japan, overall biomass and energy requirements would decrease to account for the energy needs of 107 million adults while obesity would decrease by 93% (Walpole et al., 2012). Despite the increased prevalence of obesity and overweight in developing countries, the weight of the United States contributes more to world energy requirements than any other country on the planet (Walpole et al., 2012).

Diabetes Diabetes is considered a global epidemic impacting societies and people of all income levels. Globally, type 2 diabetes has doubled and there has been an

16

Environmental nutrition

increasing trend of new cases in children and adolescents (Chen et al., 2012). Altogether, it has been projected that the number of people in the world with type 2 diabetes will reach 54% by 2030 along with an increase in the number of people with impaired glucose tolerance (Chen et al., 2012). Youth may present with complications associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at an early age that may endure over a longer period of their lifetime (Chen et al., 2012). The importance of lifestyle behaviors cannot be overemphasized, as 90% of T2DM is due to improper diet, lack of physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, and obesity (Chen et al., 2012). Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disease that can be prevented and ameliorated with a healthful diet such as consuming a plant-based diet (McMacken and Shah, 2017). The costs associated with T2DM are astronomical. In the United States alone, $174 billion was spent on diabetes in 2007 (Boyle et al., 2010). If current trends continue, 1 in 3 adults in the United States will have T2DM by 2050 along with the associated health care costs (Boyle et al., 2010). Health disparities among persons with T2DM in the United States are evident with Latinos and African-Americans facing the greatest challenges (Huang et al., 2009). Alaskan Natives and Native Americans experience diabetes at a rate three times that of all other races (Indian Health Service, 2017). Also of interest is that researchers have demonstrated that with a warming climate, there are more cases of diabetes attributed to increasing temperatures (Blauw et al., 2017).

Cancer The American Society of Clinical Oncology considers obesity, “… a major unrecognized risk factor for cancer” (Ligibel et al., 2014). Obesity can impede clinical therapies, increase morbidities, and contribute to poor clinical outcomes as well as the recurrence of cancer (Ligibel et al., 2014). The American Institute for Cancer Research estimates that by adhering to a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight, and engaging in regular physical activity, 50% of new colorectal cancer cases can be prevented each year along with 63% of new cases of esophageal cancer and 47% of stomach cancer, respectively (American Institute for Cancer Research, 2017). Globally, cancer is projected to increase by 70% over the next two decades where 70% of deaths will occur in low- and middle-income countries (WHO c. 2017). Animal products have been linked not only to cancers and other chronic diseases such as T2DM (Pan et al., 2012)—just reducing the consumption

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

17

of animal products can save 500 million lives around the globe annually (Springmann et al., 2016). Shifting to a vegetarian and vegan diet would decrease preventable deaths by 7.3 and 8.1 million deaths, respectively (Springmann et al., 2016). A pooled analysis of two prospective cohort studies in the United Kingdom found that vegans had a 19% lower overall risk of cancer than meat eaters (Key et al., 2014). Data from the Adventist Health Study 2 noted a lower incidence of colorectal cancer among vegetarians compared to meat eaters (Orlich et al., 2015). The World Health Organization projects that by 2030, all countries around the globe, including developing countries, will increase their meat consumption (World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, and United Nations, 2002). With declining production costs, it’s projected that the livestock sector in the United States will increase production over the next decade (United States Department of Agriculture, 2016). Red meat consumption in the United States will increase to 219 pounds per person in 2025 up from 211 pounds per person in 2015 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2016). Upon reviewing over 800 studies, The International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Working Group concluded that processed meat is carcinogenic to humans while red meat is possibly carcinogenic (Bouvard et al., 2015). The IARC also classified glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide globally (Benbrook, 2016), as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Guyton et al., 2015). Numerous studies have documented the co-benefits of reducing animal product consumption on improved environmental and human health outcomes (Springmann et al., 2016; Biesbroek et al., 2014).

Antibiotic resistance Antibiotic resistance, considered a grave threat to health, is in part promulgated because of the use of subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics in animal agriculture and their extensive ability to permeate the natural environment as well as contaminate food products (WHO, 2017d; Paulson and Zaoutis, 2015). If an antimicrobial is not targeted for a specific microbe, microbes can adapt to and become resistant to the impact of these medicines. With the advent of concentrated animal feeding operations, antibiotics are used to not only promote growth but to prevent disease as a result of conditions where large numbers of animals are confined to a limited space. Because of

18

Environmental nutrition

the vast number of land animals that are slaughtered for food every year, an enormous amount of antibiotics are sold to and used in these facilities. Fig. 2 offers an overview of the routes of antibiotic resistance that occur from farm to table:

Fig. 2 The center for disease control and prevention’s antibiotic resistance (AR) solutions initiative infographic. (Source: Understanding Antibiotic Resistance Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/ solutions-initiative/ar-food.html.)

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

19

In the United States, over 70% of antibiotics are sold to animal agriculture. The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is projected to increase by 67% globally (Van Boeckel et al., 2015). As only China surpasses the United States in the use of antimicrobials in livestock (Van Boeckel et al., 2015), policy recommendations in the United States include discontinuing the routine use of medically important antibiotics in livestock along with improved systems of monitoring and surveillance (Expert Commission on Addressing the Contribution of Livestock to the Antibiotic Resistance Crisis, 2017). Hospitals are encouraged to serve more vegetarian and vegan meals while avoiding meats that have been exposed to subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics (Health Care Without Harm and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, 2017; Health Care Without Harm, 2017). Globally, the World Health Organization recommends reductions and restrictions in the use of antibiotics in animals used for food as restricting the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture decreases antibiotic resistance (WHO, 2017d; Tang et al., 2017).

Conclusion While this chapter has delineated the interconnected complexities of the diet-environment-health trilemma, it is clear that food systems and food choices are imperative to improving human health and to sustaining the Earth System. This chapter has conveyed that our planetary boundaries have been transgressed and our ecosystems degraded in part because of the characteristics of the industrialized food system and accompanying related policies. At the same time, our health has been compromised due to both undernutrition and overnutrition. Ultimately, the industrialized food system that has been designed to feed the masses has left people in the world on the one extreme undernourished and on the other, overnourished—all while the Earth System has endured changes that have resulted in irreparable harm. At a time when the Earth System is in peril due to human activity, food systems must transform to systems that are sustainable, nourishing, and healing. Moving forward, those involved in the industrialized food system must deconstruct and dismantle the “diet-environment-health trilemma” to create food systems and food choices that nurture and improve human health and the health of the planet.

References American Institute for Cancer Research, 2017. Estimating preventability. http://www.aicr. org/research/research_science_policy_report.html. (Accessed 16 March 2016).

20

Environmental nutrition

American Museum of Natural History, 2016. Human population through time. November 4, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼PUwmA3Q0_OE. (Accessed 26 December 2017). American Public Health Association, 2017. How climate change impacts public health. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/climate-change/health-impacts. (Accessed 26 December 2017). Benbrook, C., 2016. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ. Sci. Eur. 28, 3. Bigelow, D., Borchers, A., 2017. Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2012, EIB-178. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Biodiversity International, 2017. Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index. Biodiversity International, Rome, Italy. Biodiversity International, 2015. What is agricultural biodiversity? https://visual.ly/ community/infographic/food/what-agricultural-biodiversity. (Accessed 21 December 2017). Blauw, L., Aziz, N., Tannemaat, M., et al., 2017. Diabetes incidence and glucose intolerance prevalence increase with higher outdoor temperature. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 5: e000317. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000317. Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K., et al., 2015. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 16 (16), 1599–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(15)00444-1. Boyle, J., Thompson, T., Gregg, E., 2010. Projection of the year 2050 burden of diabetes in the US adult population: Dynamic modeling of incidence, mortality, and prediabetes prevalence. Popul. Health Metrics 8, 29. http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/ 8/1/29. Bradshaw, C., Cook, B., 2014. Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (46), 16610–16615. Biesbroek, S., Bueno-de-Mesquita, H., Peeters, P., et al., 2014. Reducing our environmental footprint and improving our health: Greenhouse gas emission and land use of usual diet and mortality in EPIC-NL: A prospective cohort study. Environ. Health 13, 27. Canning, P., Rehkamp, S., Waters, A., Etemadnia, H., 2017. The Role of Fossil Fuels in the U.S. Food System and the American Diet, ERR-224. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Cardinale, B., Duffy, J., Gonzalez, A., et al., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148. Cassidy, E., West, P., Gerber, J., Foley, J., 2013. Redefining agricultural yields: From tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 8,034015 (8pp). Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P., Barnosky, A., Garcia, A., Pringle, R., Palmer, T., 2015. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1:e1400253. Chen, L., Magliano, D., Zimmet, P., 2012. The worldwide epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus—Present and future perspectives. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 8, 228–236. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2011.183. Chivian, E., Bernstein, A., 2010. How Our Health Depends on Biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. http:// www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/resources/182945%20HMS%20Biodiversity %20booklet.pdf. Corlett, R., 2016. Plant diversity in a changing world: Status, trends, and conservation needs. Plant Divers. 38, 10–16. Costa-Font, J., Mas, N., 2016. ‘Globesity’? The effects of globalization on obesity and caloric intake. Food Policy 64, 121–132.

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

21

Diaz, R., Rosenburg, R., 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1156401. Dye, C., 2014. After 2015: Infectious diseases in a new era of health and development. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20130426. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0426. Expert Commission on Addressing the Contribution of Livestock to the Antibiotic Resistance Crisis, 2017. Combating Antibiotic Resistance. A Policy Roadmap to Reduce Use of Medically Important Antibiotics in Livestock. Expert Commission on Addressing the Contribution of Livestock to the Antibiotic Resistance Crisis, Washington, D.C. European Commission, 2010. The factory of life. Why soil biodiversity is so important. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. https:// doi.org/10.2779/17050. Finkelstein, E., Khavjou, O., Thompson, H., et al., 2012. Obesity and severe obesity forecasts through 2030. Am. J. Prev. Med. 42 (6), 563–570. Goodland, R., Anhang, J., 2009. Livestock and climate change: What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs, and chickens? World Watch (November/December), 10–19. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. FAO, Rome. 200 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization, Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soil, 2015. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) – Technical Summary. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils. FAO, Rome Italy. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) – Managing systems at risk. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/Earthscan, Rome/London. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Katsunori, I., Lazarus, E., 2014. Ecological footprint: implications for biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 173, 121–132. Gaveau, D., Sheil, D., Husnayaen, M., et al., 2016. Rapid conversions and avoided deforestation: Examining four decades of industrial plantation expansion in Borneo. Sci. Rep. 6: 32017. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32017. Global Footprint Network, 2017a. Earth overshoot day. https://www.overshootday.org/. (Accessed 12 March 2017). Global Footprint Network, 2017b. Past Earth overshoot days. https://www.overshootday. org/newsroom/past-earth-overshoot-days/. (Accessed 12 March 2017). Guyton, K., Loomis, D., Grosse, Y., et al., 2015. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncol. 16 (5), 490–491. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8. Health Care Without Harm, 2017. Health care culinary contest: reimagining hospital food. https://noharm-uscanada.org/healthcareculinarycontest. (Accessed 29 December 2017). Health Care Without Harm, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, 2017. Antimicrobial Stewardship Through Food Animal Agriculture Toolkit Module Guidance for healthcare facilities and health professionals. Health Care Without Harm, Reston, VA. Hoekstra, A., Mekonnen, M., Chapagain, A., et al., 2012. Global monthly water scarcity: Blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS One 7(2), e32688. Huang, E., Brown, S., Thakur, N., et al., 2009. Racial/ethnic differences in concerns about current and future medications among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32 (2), 311–316. Indian Health Service, 2017. Indian health disparities. https://www.ihs.gov/newsroom/ includes/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/factsheets/Disparities. pdf. (Accessed 27 December 2017).

22

Environmental nutrition

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom/New York, NY, USA. International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017. Unsustainable food systems threaten wild crop and dolphin species – IUCN Red List. https://www.iucn.org/news/species/ 201712/unsustainable-food-systems-threaten-wild-crop-and-dolphin-species— iucn-red-list. (Accessed 27 December 2017). Jalava, M., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., et al., 2014. Diet change—A solution to reduce water use? Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014)074016 (14pp), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/ 7/074016. Key, T., Appleby, P., Crowe, F., et al., 2014. Cancer in British vegetarians: Updated analyses of 4998 incident cancers in a cohort of 32,491 meat eaters, 8612 fish eaters, 18,298 vegetarians, and 2246 vegans. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (suppl 1), 378S–385S. https://doi.org/ 10.3945/ajcn.113.071266. Khoury, C., Bjorkmanc, A., Dempewolf, H., et al., 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111 (11), 4001–4006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111. Ligibel, J., Alfano, C., Kerry, S., Courneya, K., et al., 2014. American Society of Clinical Oncology position statement on obesity and cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 32 (31), 3568–3574. Lu, C., Tian, H., 2017. Global nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use for agriculture production in the past half century: Shifted hot spots and nutrient imbalance. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 181–192. Marlow, H.J., Hayes, W.K., Soret, S., Carter, R.L., Schwab, E.R., Sabate, J., 2009. Diet and the environment: Does what you eat matter? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (5), 1699S–1703S. McMacken, M., Shah, S., 2017. A plant-based diet for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 14, 342–354. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415. Melillo, J., Richmond, T., Yohe, G. (Eds.), 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841pp. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Miller, S., Wofsya, S., Michalak, A., et al., 2013. Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (50), 20018–20022. Murtaugh, P., Schlax, M., 2009. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 14–20. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2017. Carbon dioxide. Direct measurements: 2005-Present. https://climate.nasa.gov. (Accessed 27 December 2017). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. The dead zone. https://www.nnvl. noaa.gov/MediaDetail2.php?MediaID¼1062&MediaTypeID¼3&ResourceID¼104616. (Accessed 20 December 2017). Neff, R., Parker, C., Kirschenmann, F., et al., 2011. Peak oil, food systems, and public health. Am. J. Public Health 101, 1587–1597. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300123. Norwegian Refugee Council, Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2015. Global Estimates 2015: People Displaced by Disaster. Orgiazzi, A., Bardgett, R.D., Barrios, E. et al., (Eds.), 2016. Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas. European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, European Union. 176 pp.

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

23

Orlich, M., Singh, P., Sabate, J., et al., 2015. Vegetarian dietary patterns and the risk of colorectal cancers. JAMA Intern. Med. 175 (5), 767–776. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamainternmed.2015.59. Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A., et al., 2012. Red meat consumption and mortality: Results from two prospective cohort studies. Arch. Intern. Med. 172 (7), 555–563. https://doi. org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287. Paulson, J., Zaoutis, T., 2015. Nontherapeutic use of antimicrobial agents in animal agriculture: Implications for pediatrics. Pediatrics 136, e1670–e1677. Pauly, D., Zeller, D., 2016. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nat. Commun. 7, 10244. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/ncomms10244. Pautasso, M., Aistara, G., Barnaud, A., et al., 2013. Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 151–175. Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., 2010. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000-2050. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (43), 18371–18374. Popkin, B., Adair, L., Ng, S., 2012. Now and then: The global nutrition transition: The pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr. Rev. 70 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00456.x. Richards, J., Bradshaw, S., 2017. Uprooted by Climate Change: Responding to the Growing Risk of Displacement. Oxfam GB, Oxford, 10.21201/2017.0964. ISBN 978-1-78748-096-4. Rodrigues, A., Brooks, T., Butchart, S., et al., 2014. Spatially explicit trends in the global conservation status of vertebrates. PLoS One 9 (11), e113934. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0113934. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, 2016. The State of the World’s Plants Report – 2016. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richland, England. Schaible, G., 2017. Understanding irrigated agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/2017/june/understanding-irrigated-agriculture/. (Accessed 27 December 2017). Shiva, V., Bhatt, V., Panigrahi, A., et al., 2017. Seeds of Hope, Seeds of Resilience. How Biodiversity and Agroecology Offer Solutions to Climate Change by Growing Living Carbon. Navdanya/RESTE, New Delhi, India. Sinha, E., Michalak, A., Balaji, V., 2017. Eutrophication will increase during the 21st century as a result of precipitation changes. Science 357, 405–408. Springmann, M., Godfray, H., Rayner, M., et al., 2016. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change co-benefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (15), 4146–4151. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstr€ om, J., et al., 2015a. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223), 1259855-1–125985510. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., Cornelia Ludwig, C., 2015b. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration. Anthropocene Rev. 2 (1), 81–98. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P., McNeill, J., 2007. The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36 (8), 614–621. Steffen, W., Eliott, S. (Eds.), 2004. Global Change and the Earth System - Executive Summary. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Stockholm, Sweden. Tang, K., Caffrey, N., No´brega, D., et al., 2017. Restricting the use of antibiotics in foodproducing animals and its associations with antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals and human beings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Planet Health 1, e316–e327. The 2015 Global Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2017. Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 377 (1), 13–27.

24

Environmental nutrition

Tilman, D., Clark, M., 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959. Turner-McGrievy, G., Mandes, T., Crimarco, A., 2017. A plant-based diet for overweight and obesity prevention and treatment. J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 14, 369–374. Underwood, A., Zahran, S., 2016. The climate co-benefits of obesity reduction. In: American Economist Association Conference Presentation. San Francisco, CA. United Nations Systems Standing Committee on Nutrition, 2017. The UN decade of action on nutrition 2016–2025. https://www.unscn.org/en/topics/un-decade-of-actionon-nutrition. (Accessed 27 November 2017). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2017. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2017. Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2016. UNHCR, Geneva, Switzerland.http://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34. pdf. (Accessed 26 December 2017). United Nations Office of the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and Small Island Developing States, 2016. Least developed countries fact sheet. http://unohrlls.org/custom-content/uploads/ 2016/08/Least-Developed-Countries-factsheet-2016_ENGLISH_FINAL_ UPDATED-1.pdf. (Accessed 26 December 2017). United States Department of Agriculture, 2016. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2025. Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared by the Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee. Long-term Projections Report OCE-2016-1, 99 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. Nutrient pollution: The problem. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/problem. (Accessed 27 December 2017). United States Global Change Research Program, 2017. Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D.J., Stewart, B.C., Maycock, T.K. (Eds.), Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment. In: vol. I. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC,470 pp. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0J964J6. Van Boeckel, T., Browerb, C., Gilbert, M., 2015. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (18), 5649–5654. Wagg, C., Bender, S., Widmer, F., et al., 2014. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (14), 5266–5270. Walpole, S., Prieto-Merino, D., Edwards, P., Cleland, J., Stevens, G., Roberts, I., 2012. The weight of nations: An estimation of adult human biomass. BMC Public Health 12, 439. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-439. Watts, N., Adger, W., Agnolucci, P., et al., 2015. Health and climate change: Policy responses to protect public health. Lancet 386, 1861–1914. Wecht, K., Jacob, D., Frankenberg, C., et al., 2014. 2014. Mapping of north American methane emissions with high spatial resolution by inversion of SCIAMACHY satellite data. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 7741–7756. World Health Organization, 2017a. The top 10 causes of death: Top 10 causes of death worldwide. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/. (Accessed 29 November 2017). World Health Organization, 2017b. The top 10 causes of death: Leading causes of death by economy income group. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ index1.html. (Accessed 29 November 2017). World Health Organization, 2017c. Cancer. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/ fs297/en. (Accessed 17 December 2020).

The diet, health, and environment trilemma

25

World Health Organization, 2017d. Stop using antibiotics in healthy animals to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/ antibiotics-animals-effectiveness/en/. World Health Organization, 2017e. WHO Guidelines on use of Medically Important Antimicrobials in Food-Producing Animals. World Health Organization, Geneva. 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. World Health Organization, 2016. Obesity and overweight. http://www.who.int/ mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/. (Accessed 19 November 2016). World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, 2002. Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation on Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. WHO/FAO, Geneva, Switzerland Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation, Geneva, 28 January–1 February 2002. (WHO technical report series; 916). World Meteorological Organization, 2017. WMO report: 2017 is set to be in top 3 hottest years. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/11/wmo-statementon-state-of-climate-in-2017/. (Accessed 12 July 2017). World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2017. What does ecological overshoot mean? http://wwf. panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report_timeline/lpr_2012/ demands_on_our_planet/overshoot/. (Accessed 25 December 2017). World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2016. Living Planet Report 2016. Risk and Resilience in a New Era. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2015. In:Tanzer, J., Phua, C., Lawrence, A., Gonzales, A., Roxburgh, T., Gamblin, P. (Eds.), Living Blue Planet Report. Species, Habitats and Human Well-Being. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2014. The Growth of Soy: Impacts and Solutions. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Worm, B., Barbier, E., Beaumont, N., et al., 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314 (3), 787–790.

Further reading Befort, C., Nazir, N., Perri, M., 2012. Prevalence of obesity among adults from rural and urban areas of the United States: Findings from NHANES (2005–2008). J. Rural. Health 28 (4), 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2012.00411.x. Chavez, N., 2017. CNN. Thomas Fire is the largest blaze in California history. http://www. cnn.com/2017/12/23/us/thomas-fire-california/index.html. (Accessed 27 December 2017). Kelly, R., Burns, S., Wackernagel, M., 2015. State of the States: A New Perspective on the Wealth of Our Nation. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA. Office of Minority Health, 2017. Obesity and American Indians/Alaska Natives. https:// minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/content.aspx?lvl¼3&lvlID¼62&ID¼6457. (Accessed 20 December 2017). Ogden, C., Carroll, M., Fryar, C., et al., 2015. Prevalence of obesity among adults and youth: United States, 2011–2014. NCHS data brief, no 219, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. Ogden, C., Carroll, M., Kit, B., et al., 2014. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. JAMA 311 (8), 806–814. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.2014.732. Simeral, D., 2017. United States drought monitor: Map for December 7, 2017. http:// droughtmonitor.unl.edu/. (Accessed 12 October 2017).

CHAPTER 2

Food systems: Description and trends Andrew Berardy, Heidi Lynch, Christopher Wharton

Introduction Modern civilization would not exist without the foundation of agricultural production. The shift from hunting and gathering to crop cultivation and animal husbandry allowed the generation of surplus food and division of labor that enabled the development of large settlements and technological advances. Subsequent improvements in farming techniques led to greater yields and reduced labor. Today, most large-scale agricultural systems employ an industrial model requiring considerable resources to maintain, including the use of oil in everything from the operation of farm equipment to the creation of fertilizers and pesticides. Industrial agriculture also operates on a system of monocultures in which crop systems are generally decoupled from animal systems, allowing both to be optimized specifically for efficiency in volume production. Simultaneously, and over the course of the 20th century, other trends helped to define the agricultural system in place today. For example, food production and distribution shifted from a primarily regional focus to a broader global focus. This allowed for yield optimization afforded by local conditions while providing consumers around the world with foods either not in season or not grown locally. Although these transitions enabled dramatic improvements in development and reductions in global hunger, modern food systems are also more vulnerable to threats, contamination, and potential adverse health impacts, if only due to their size and scope. Modern agriculture is responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions, especially through methane emitted by livestock, and is also a major source of pollutants emitted to the biosphere. It places tremendous stress on small farmers attempting to compete with large-scale operations and results in poor conditions for many farm workers. Finally, industrial-scale agriculture

Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00002-3

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

27

28

Environmental nutrition

can be less nutritious, more likely to be contaminated, and could lead to antibiotic-resistant diseases, herbicide-resistant weeds, and pesticideresistant insects. In response to growing concerns over these and other issues, alternative production methods, including organic farming, have grown in popularity, and consumer demand for alternative products has developed multiple market niches reflecting a wide array of health, ethical, and sustainability concerns. These trends, however, can be interpreted as positive or problematic as the mainstreaming of alternative practices can sometimes contend with the original purpose of alternative methods employed. Monoculture organic agriculture is one such example, where synthetic inputs are restricted, but other problems associated with industrial agriculture remain. As such, the evolution and current operation of food systems is complex, including multiple actors and stakeholders as well as widely differing views on how food systems should operate and what specifically they ought to provide for people. This chapter presents a chronological view of the evolution of food systems and some of the consequences they had, and continue to have, for the societies they support.

Ancient agriculture The origins of human agriculture predate any written history and therefore speculation regarding how agriculture began must rely on a combination of theories of human behavior and evolution as well as archaeological evidence. Rather than having one single origin point that spread the knowledge to the rest of the world, agriculture originated independently in different regions, possibly enabled or motivated by different circumstances in each case. Transitions to agriculture from hunting and gathering occurred at varying points in time in different geographic locations, as there was neither means nor motivation to quickly spread knowledge to globally remote peoples. Archaeological evidence helped reveal how ancient cultures practiced agriculture in their region and how that differed from other sites. The very earliest stages of the transition from hunting and gathering to domestication are a significant point of contention among scholars and the accuracy of such theories depends to some extent on how humans would have behaved in ancient time periods. Economists have provided theoretical insights into what circumstances must have been necessary for the origins of agriculture to take root. Ancient peoples must have had some impetus to motivate their transition to agriculture, but exactly what that was may never be certain.

Food systems: Description and trends

29

Prehistoric to Pleistocene—Hunting and gathering Early humanity subsisted on foraged and hunted foods. Around the world and at various points in time, people initiated a transition where a symbiotic relationship with animals evolved into domestication, and human behaviors affecting the environment inhabited by plants yielded agriculture (Rosenberg, 1990). Ideas regarding what motivated humanity to move from hunter-gatherer to agricultural society vary based on competing theories of evolution (e.g., Darwinian/selectionist vs. Spencerian/intentionalist) and cultural change (Rosenberg, 1990). Rindos (2013) proposed that agriculture was a mutualistic predator-prey relationship that evolved from huntinggathering interactions, and a product of domestication, which resulted from less intensive subsistence behaviors (Rosenberg, 1990). Now discredited discovery models theorized that agriculture was immediately adopted once discovered because its inherent benefits were clear to those who discovered it; subsequent authors have demonstrated that hunter-gatherers would have already understood seed-plant relationships, experienced low levels of dietary stress, and knew that food production required hard work, yielding little motivation to pursue agriculture (Rosenberg, 1990). An allocation model proposed that territoriality triggered by rising population would limit subsequent responses to continued population increases, ultimately reducing available responses to make agriculture socially and economically required (Rosenberg, 1990). In addition, the model suggested that the focus of early agriculture would have been on annual and perennial food plants because they demonstrated the shortest lag between labor input and resource output as compared to trees or other potential food sources, and this expectation has been confirmed in analysis of behavior of Numic-speaking hunter-gatherers of the American Great Basin (Rosenberg, 1990). For example, although tree nuts were a critical resource that determined territoriality in many cases, incidental cultivation of grasses would become increasingly important until population size outgrew the capacity that could be fed with wild resources. This might have made cultivated grasses the new critical resource, requiring agricultural production (Rosenberg, 1990). Another possible reason for a lack of widespread agriculture during the Pleistocene was a climate with poor conditions for agriculture, including low atmospheric CO2 and extreme variability, which may have made agriculture impossible during this time (Richerson et al., 2001). Motivation for transition to agriculture may also have been spurred by extinction of megafauna that were overhunted due to a good ratio of effort to value in hunting coupled with their slow growth and long maturation periods (Smith, 1975).

30

Environmental nutrition

Holocene—Domestication of plants and animals Agriculture eventually developed across the world, changing humanity’s relationship with the environment and beginning the course that shaped the world to date. Transitions to agriculture were facilitated by a rapid change to a more hospitable climate for agriculture in most environments and motivated by population growth, which was limited primarily by the rate of innovation in subsistence improvements (Richerson et al., 2001). Archaeological evidence from Asia, Africa, and Central America has shown that widespread agricultural practices derived from domestication of plants and animals started between 10,000 to 7000 years ago, which allowed humanity to transition to selective hunting, herding, and settled agriculture (Gupta, 2004). Pollen and charcoal evidence from the late Holocene in the Yellow River valley in China indicates that agriculture in this area used a slash-and-burn cultivation technique, with an emphasis on cereal crops (Li et al., 2009). Around 8500 years ago, southeastern Europe experienced the spread and growth of agriculture, leading to rapid population growth that followed a boom-and-bust pattern (Shennan et al., 2013). Investigations at Kuk Swamp in Papua New Guinea showed that the population cleared rainforests, practiced ditched cultivation, and used Taro as an important food source during the Holocene (Denham et al., 2003).

Traditional agriculture Neolithic—Beginning of European farming The earliest signs of European agriculture came later than in Asia, Africa, and Central America. Fossil pollen from around 5000 to 7000 years ago showed evidence of deforestation and conversion to pasture and arable land, both signs of early farming (Delcourt, 1987). Around this time was also the first evidence for the cultivation of cereal grains and disturbed-ground plants (Delcourt, 1987). Taken together, these are clear evidence of early agricultural practices. During this same time period, there was evidence that cultivation of squash began in North America (Delcourt, 1987). In the Guanzhong Basin of China, people grew cereal crops, including the earliest known cultivation of buckwheat around 5500 years ago, which supported expanding human populations (Li et al., 2009). New Guinea transitioned to agriculture including managing grasslands and intensive cultivation of bananas during the Neolithic

Food systems: Description and trends

31

period, well before influences from outside New Guinea, demonstrating that the agricultural developments arose independently (Denham et al., 2003). Around 3720 BCE, Neolithic settlements in Ireland practiced agriculture growing wheat, barley, and flax in fixed plot agriculture, which over time led to a decline in Elms as settlement activities expanded. However, over the next few centuries, as climatic conditions worsened, there was a decrease in cultivation and increased reliance on wild resources as well as reafforestation (Whitehouse et al., 2014).

1st to 4th centuries—Roman settlements Archaeological evidence and ecological investigations showed the Tronc¸ais forest in Central France was the site of at least 108 Roman agricultural settlements ranging from the 1st to 4th centuries and the early Middle Ages, which had a lasting impact on biodiversity in the area (Dambrine et al., 2017). Modern-day plant biodiversity, as well as soil pH, available phosphorus, and nitrogen, was found to be highest toward the center of Roman settlements, which is evidence of Roman agricultural practices and their lasting influence on the forest over a thousand years later (Dambrine et al., 2017). Thus, ancient cultivation practices had impacts on modern forests and other landscapes even without continuous occupation or cultivation. Maize was introduced from Mexico to the southeastern United States around 1600 years ago, but only persisted in cultivation and did not become naturalized (Delcourt, 1987).

13th to 18th centuries—Early native American and other agricultures Pollen records show evidence of Iroquois undertaking land clearance and cultivation of maize in Crawford Lake, Ontario, from the 14th to 17th centuries (Delcourt, 1987). The Tronc¸ais forest in Central France was heavily exploited for wood products and grazing in the 17th century (Dambrine et al., 2017). British agriculture from the 13th through 18th centuries and beyond relied heavily on seasonal migration to provide farm workers during harvest months and at other labor-intensive time periods in the farming cycle (Collins, 1976). Migrant workers during these time periods were evidence of geographically uneven economic progress and population growth, as well as an increase in farming styles, which required more labor (Collins, 1976).

32

Environmental nutrition

Modern agriculture Colonialism, pastoralism, expansion The 1800s saw a quickly growing population, which rose above 1 billion worldwide for the first time early in the century. A growing population was what inspired Thomas Malthus to write a book warning that increased abundance and population growth would eventually lead to disaster in the form of starvation and disease, now known as a Malthusian Dilemma. At the root of this problem was the assumed fact that agricultural productivity would not be able to keep pace with population growth. Although population is now more than 7 billion people and there is sufficient agricultural production to feed all people, this argument is still used as cogent motivation to improve the food system. The influence of colonialism was felt in the Southwest United States in the 19th century as evidenced by tree rings indicating a sharp decline in the number of small forest fires, possibly due to an increase in intense grazing, especially by sheep, which removed grass that fueled fires (Savage and Swetnam, 1990). During this time period, agricultural land expansion was also responsible for loss of land in grasslands, forests, and other ecosystems (Houghton and Hackler, 2000). By 1900, cropland in the United States was about 236  106 hectares, up from 0.25  106 hectares in 1700, with the most rapid expansion occurring during the 1800s (Houghton and Hackler, 2000).

Modernization, the green revolution, and alternative agriculture The 1900s saw the most dramatic shifts in farming practices since the origin of agriculture and resulted in most of the essential practices still in place today for the majority of agriculture. US cropland hasn’t expanded much since 1920, meaning that other changes were necessary to keep pace with the growing population (Houghton and Hackler, 2000). Agriculture in the 20th century was characterized by decreasing economic importance, numbers of farms, and workers engaged in farming coupled with increasing average farm size, mechanization, and use of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Global trends across both developed and developing countries showed that as countries’ economic development increased, the economic importance of agriculture and therefore the number of people employed in farming decreased. From 1930 to 1994, farming’s contribution to GDP shrunk from 8% to 2%, 4.1 million farms were lost, and 7.6 million people left the agricultural workforce

Food systems: Description and trends

33

(Rodgers, 1994). In 2012, there were 0.1 million fewer farms in the United States, despite those farms occupying about 40% of all US land (Census of Agriculture, 2014). In 2015, GDP from farming was only 1% of US GDP and employed 0.2 million fewer workers than in 1994 (Glaser and Morrison, 2017).

Industrial agriculture Following World War II, application of new fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides allowed rapid improvement in yield, marking a “green revolution” in United States agriculture (de Wit, 1992). Later in the century, research centers applied the same concepts to rice and wheat grown in Asia and South America, again showing dramatic improvement in overall yield (de Wit, 1992). Unfortunately, these practices marginalized small farmers and regions with poorer resources, caused environmental pollution, and started a dependence on more inputs that would fluctuate in cost over time, reducing predictability of profitable income for farmers (de Wit, 1992). In response to increasing industrialization of agriculture, the organic movement gained traction, hoping to return agriculture to more “natural” roots. At its heart was the idea that farming should be based in nature as much as possible with minimal human input and guidance. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 was the first regulation defining what substances could and couldn’t be used in organic foods production and handling. Biodynamic agriculture is similar in spirit to organic agriculture, but it goes further in replication of an ecosystem by encouraging integration of soil, plants, and livestock as interrelated components all necessary to maintain functionality. The advent of direct genetic modification of plant genes had the promise to dramatically change agricultural production and spark a new green revolution through potentially improving yields, reducing resource inputs, extending the range of suitable growing conditions, and fortifying crops with additional nutrients. However, early attempts such as the flavr savr tomato are widely considered failures. Despite early setbacks, the use of biotechnology continued to grow as companies like Monsanto found commercial success with their seeds that promised more resilient crops that required fewer inputs and would help improve farmers’ yields. As the population grew, a large percentage of farming land was converted to housing and other developments, reducing available arable land. As such, there emerged other niche agricultural techniques, such as aquaponics,

34

Environmental nutrition

hydroponics, and aeroponics, which are methods with a focus on reducing required land and other inputs including water by utilizing technologically sophisticated systems of food production.

Sustainable food systems and the future The 21st century is full of challenges, including arguments over how to best feed the growing population of the world, what constitutes a sustainable food system, and what ethical perspectives are most important to address. Some of the key topics debated include the role of animal protein, the best farming methods and distribution strategies, and how farmers and farm workers should be treated. Fig. 1 shows the stages of the food life cycle in the 21st century and many of the potential techniques being used to improve the food system at each stage. Scientific advances in every stage of the food system from production through disposal promise to provide food that is more efficient, causes less environmental impact, has better nutrition, is healthier, is cheaper, lasts longer, and supports farmer livelihoods. Skeptics point out the shortcomings, potential dangers, and negative externalities in techniques such as genetic modification, in vitro meat, and long-term cold storage. Alternative strategies include innovative coproduction systems, behavioral change, and shifted priorities for food system sustainability that create scenarios where impacts are reduced without the need for technological advances. Although people have eschewed meat since the philosopher Pythagoras and the advent of Buddhism in the 6th century BC or earlier, the primary motivations have been to act in accordance with an ethical or religious principle, or to support human health. As sustainability’s importance grows in the early 21st century, the environmental benefits of more plant-based diets also increase in prominence as a reason to avoid animal-based products. In addition, new plant-based or animal-free innovations in meat analogues or cultured meat allow consumers to have foods similar to the animal derived foods they are used to. One counterargument for why animal-derived foods are still necessary advocates that the integration of animals into cropping systems in biodynamic agriculture improves productivity and reduces environmental impacts. Another argument states that animals are the only productive means of making beneficial use out of certain land, such as rocky hillsides only suited for grazing. Despite differences in their proposed solutions, a common

Food systems: Description and trends

35

Fig. 1 The food life cycle has opportunity for improvements (outer circle) at every stage (inner circle), but many opportunities for positive change conflict with or preclude others because of tensions in what the proper perspective is (middle circle).

concern across these perspectives is that the environmental damage caused by industrial confined animal feeding operations is unsustainable. Genetic modification continues to be a point of contention when discussing opportunities for sustainable agricultural production. It offers the potential for incredible advances including drought- and pest-resistant crops, higher yields, better nutrition, and greater profits for farmers. However, most of these possibilities have not yet been realized, and there are concerns both regarding the safety of genetically modified crops and animals as well as the ethics of business practices when selling modified seeds. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the organic farming movement, which is positioned as a return to the purity of traditional farming methods without

36

Environmental nutrition

synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, and no genetic modification. The downsides to this method include that it is typically associated with lower crop yields, higher cost, and greater resource use than conventional farming methods. In addition, many certified organic products only follow regulations and restrictions, without embracing the spirit of organic farming that emphasizes mutual benefit with the environment and restoration of the soil. Perhaps the only topic generating more discussion than genetic modification is the role of local food production and distribution. Many people consider local food to be the ideal way to ensure a sustainable food system. In addition to reducing the distance from farm to plate (food miles), local farmers are more accessible and visible in their community, which discourages practices harmful to the environment and encourages interaction with customers. Local food systems are also less vulnerable to disruptions in weather and transportation systems elsewhere in the world. Extensive interconnected networks of production and distribution as well as their supporting subsystems cause vulnerability that could exacerbate potential negative impacts of climate change (Berardy and Chester, 2017). However, local food production is not necessarily more efficient, and therefore can have a greater overall environmental impact even after accounting for transportation (Weber and Matthews, 2008). In addition, the type of food being produced and consumed typically has a greater impact than where it is from and how it is transported (Weber and Matthews, 2008). A less common but perhaps the most important question in modern farming is what role farmers should have and how to keep people interested in an agricultural career. The United States has an aging population of farmers, many of whom have children with no desire to continue the family business. In many states, farmland will bring greater profit by selling to developers than by growing crops. Farming itself is difficult and expensive work with very high risks, especially at smaller scales, and farmers are typically not treated with the respect they deserve. Migrant farm workers are especially vulnerable and are afforded very few protections. Small farms also face fierce competition from large-scale operations that benefit from large capital investments, so even the most dedicated farmers can still fail. Despite these obstacles, farms are what enable modern civilization to continue apace and are an often overlooked but crucially important industry. Trends toward more community and backyard gardens, as well as urban farming provide hope that agriculture will soon experience a resurgence in interest and the world will continue to have enough farmers to keep up with its evergrowing population.

Food systems: Description and trends

37

Globalized food system Rapid globalization in the second half of the 20th century and persisting to current times created a highly interconnected world in which people, ideas, and goods had relatively free and unobstructed movement across the globe. Perhaps the first and most significant consequence of globalization to agriculture was the green revolution, which consisted of efforts to initiate technology transfer designed to increase global agricultural productivity by improving yields around the world. Decreasing costs of shipping goods, increasing specialization and efficiency in growing certain crops and raising livestock helped feed into a global marketplace of foods that is reflected in the diversity of products and countries of origin seen in most modern grocery stores. However, this is only one aspect of the current complex global food system. For most food production, nearly every stage in the process is performed in isolation, yet dependent on other connected stages occurring elsewhere. For example, specialized crops are grown for seed production to select for positive traits, and those seeds are then sold to farmers in numerous geographic locations. Farmers then sell either to a cooperative or directly to one or more distributors. Distributors may then sell to processing plants or retailers. Processing plants engage in value-add activities and sell to retailers. Other potential pathways for crops include being sold as livestock feed before or after processing, or being sold for biofuels production. Intentionally contrasted against the globalized food production machinery, an increasing number of consumers demand to have transparency in their foods’ origins. Engaging in community-supported agriculture, joining a grocery cooperative with collective purchasing power, working and reaping rewards in a community garden, and purchasing foods directly from farmers are ways consumers increase engagement with and knowledge of how their food is made. It is questionable whether such activities have a net environmental benefit. For example, life cycle assessment that accounts for food miles finds that other aspects including what the food actually is have significantly greater impacts on environmental impacts (Weber and Matthews, 2008). However, the consensus among food system sustainability scholars is that transparency is a vital aspect of any sustainable food system (Eakin et al., 2016). A globally distributed system with multiple suppliers, processors, and distributors makes transparency efforts more difficult. An interesting trend in alternative food systems is the increase of convenience-oriented services and products that still offer the appearance

38

Environmental nutrition

of a more sustainable food chain. For example, several food delivery services claim to have better values by working directly with farmers to deliver food to consumers. A growing number of restaurants also advertise farm-to-table meals and pride themselves on relationships with local specialty farmers.

Conclusions The evolution of humanity’s sources of food from hunter-gatherer tribes, to segmented agrarian settlements, and finally a globalized industrialized machine with pockets of resistance hoping to return to a simpler time while retaining the knowledge gained along the way raises the question of what an ideal food system would be. There are more potential answers to this question than ever before as technology and ideas continue to advance along divergent paths. When debating what the future of food should be, some see technology as the solution, while others seek a return to the environment (Berardy, 2015). Tension between these perspectives is ultimately what shapes the current food system as sides clash over issues like genetic modification. Genetically modified crops are prevalent, especially in animal feed, and attempts to label and isolate GM foods were met with fierce resistance, but certified organic foods are not allowed to be genetically modified and genetically modified foods are not as pervasive or successful as once hoped, especially outside of the United States. Diversity of perspectives on how to shape the food system is important, but a balance between caution and optimism is required. While there is concern that GM foods or other biotechnologies could contaminate other crops and spread, on the other side there is concern that organic or even conventional production methods without improvements will be insufficient to feed a rapidly growing population and that the pace of natural resource consumption will deplete fresh water, arable land, and other agricultural inputs like fertilizer. However, production is only one aspect of food, and consumer behavior may end up having a far greater impact on the sustainability of the food system. Producers respond to consumer demand, food waste accounts for about one third of food produced, and reducing excessive consumption, especially of animal products, will decrease the environmental burdens from agriculture. Humanity will continue to innovate and find ways to shape the food system to reflect consumer values, and must hope that the trends in the food system moving forward will be of service and benefit to all involved and embody the principles of a sustainable food system.

Food systems: Description and trends

39

References Berardy, A., 2015. Finding the Future of Food: Sustainable Consumption Lessons from and for Veganism. Arizona State University. Retrieved from, http://hdl.handle.net/2286/ R.A.150608. Berardy, A., Chester, M.V., 2017. Climate change vulnerability in the food, energy, and water nexus: concerns for agricultural production in Arizona and its urban export supply. Environ. Res. Lett. 12 (3), 035004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5e6d. Census of Agriculture, 2014. Farms and farmland. Retrieved from, https://www.agcensus. usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/ Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf. Collins, E.J.T., 1976. Migrant labour in British agriculture in the nineteenth century. Econ. Hist. Rev. 29 (1), 38–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.1976.tb00239.x. Dambrine, A.E., Dupouey, J., La€ ut, L., Humbert, L., Thinon, M., Beaufils, T., Richard, H., 2017. Present Forest Biodiversity Patterns in France Related to Former Roman Agriculture. Ecology 88 (6), 1430–1439. de Wit, C.T., 1992. Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agr. Syst. 40 (1), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(92)90018-J. Delcourt, H.R., 1987. The impact of prehistoric agriculture and land occupation on natural vegetation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2 (2), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(87) 90097-8. Denham, T.P., Haberle, S.G., Lentfer, C., Fullagar, R., Field, J., Therin, M., Porch, N., Winsborough, B., 2003. Origins of agriculture at Kuk swamp in the highlands of New Guinea. Science 301 (July), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085255. Eakin, H., Patrick, J., Christopher, C., Farryl, W., Xiong, A., Stoltzfus, J., 2017. Identifying attributes of food system sustainability: emerging themes and consensus. Agric. Hum. Values 34 (3), 757–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9754-8. Glaser, L., Morrison, R.M., 2017. Ag and food sectors and the economy. Retrieved from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-theessentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy.aspx. (Accessed 1 January 2017). Gupta, A.K., 2004. Origin of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration. Curr. Sci. 87 (1), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2443.2008.01212.x. Houghton, R.A., Hackler, J.L., 2000. Changes in terrestrial carbon storage in the United States. 1: the roles of agriculture and forestry. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 9 (2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00166.x. Li, X., Shang, X., Dodson, J., Zhou, X., 2009. Holocene agriculture in the Guanzhong Basin in NW China indicated by pollen and charcoal evidence. Holocene 19 (8), 1213–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683609345083. Richerson, P.J., Boyd, R., Bettinger, R.L., 2001. Was agriculture impossible during the Pleistocene but mandatory during the Holocene? A climate change hypothesis. Am. Antiq. 66 (3), 387–411. Rindos, D., 2013. The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press. Rodgers, J.L., 1994. Differential human capital and structural evolution in agriculture. Agric. Econ. 11 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5150(94)90012-4. Rosenberg, M., 1990. The mother of invention: evolutionary theory, territorality and the origins of agriculture. Am. Anthropol. 92 (2), 399–415. Shennan, S., Downey, S.S., Timpson, A., Edinborough, K., Colledge, S., Kerig, T., Manning, K., Thomas, M.G., 2013. Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe. Nat. Commun. 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/ncomms3486.

40

Environmental nutrition

Smith, V., 1975. The primitive hunter culture, Pleistocene extinction, and the rise of agriculture. J. Polit. Econ. 83 (4), 727–756. Savage, M., Swetnam, T.W., 1990. Early 19th-century fire decline following sheep pasturing in a Navajo Ponderosa pine forest. Ecology 71 (6), 2374–2378. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1938649. Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S., 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (10), 3508–3513. https://doi. org/10.1021/es702969f. Whitehouse, N.J., Schulting, R.J., McClatchie, M., Barratt, P., McLaughlin, T.R., Bogaard, A., Colledge, S., Marchant, R., Gaffrey, J., Bunting, M.J., 2014. Neolithic agriculture on the European western frontier: the boom and bust of early farming in Ireland. J. Archaeol. Sci. 51, 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.08.009.

CHAPTER 3

The environmental nutrition model  Joan Sabate

Introduction Modern industrial agricultural practices have given us a food system that produces a tremendous quantity of food at an affordable price. Yet, to all who take a close look at the systems used to produce food, it is clear that this bounty of food comes at a tremendous cost to the natural environment. Current practices pollute the soil, waterways, and air, requires a staggering amount of chemical supplements and fossil fuel, and some of the food produced is nutritionally compromised. The toll on our planet is to the point that the damage may be irreversible in some sectors of the ecosystem. Industrial agriculture as a method of food production is unsustainable. The problems inherent in current practices can no longer be ignored. As we set about to understand the problems of industrial agriculture and food consumption practices, we sensed the need to depict the whole system. We started to draw simple diagrams of how the inputs from the natural world provide food for human societies and how humans, through the food system, impact the natural world. The more we drew and tinkered, the more complexities we could appreciate. This exercise gave us the outlook that the challenges with our contemporary food production and consumption practices lie in the feedbacks and intricacies of its workings. The outcome of our exercise, the environmental nutrition model (ENM), is intended to provide a useful didactic tool to explain, understand, and ultimately contribute to the necessary modifications and changes that the current multifaceted food system must adopt to achieve sustainability.

The background of industrial agriculture Early humans were hunters and gatherers who relied on game, and on nuts, fruits, and vegetables found in nature. They moved with seasonal changes Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00003-5

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

41

42

Environmental nutrition

and followed the available food supplies. When animals were domesticated and agriculture developed, people settled. For millennia agriculture was a system of polycultures that included a variety of crops and animals on the same farmlands. Compared with the output of foods, inputs were low, consisting of solar radiation, rain water, and animal waste for fertilizer (Sabate et al., 2014). One farmer could feed a family by using only the energy of his labor and that provided by nature. As depicted in Fig. 1, originally agricultural activity resulted in a net gain in energy as more energy was obtained from food than expended on its production. This sustainable traditional agriculture continued almost unchanged until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, when the original energy profit turned into an increased use of fossil fuel energy for food production. In the 19th century many innovations transformed the face of agriculture. Taking advantage of a large labor base and draft animals, farmers were able to manage larger areas of land. As the steel industry grew, the steel surfaced plow was introduced that allowed sticky soils to be cultivated. One farm could produce enough food to feed a whole community and beyond. A major turning point occurred when tractors began to replace draft animals in the 20th century giving a significant growth to agricultural productivity and output. Machinery made farming more efficient. Early harvesting methods had required separate process operations for different implements. With tractors, the number of necessary passes in a field for specific implements was reduced, and eventually, those implements were combined through innovation into the combine harvester (Reid, 2011). And so, agriculture became wedded to the oil industry and fossil fuels. As food production intensified with the use of fossil fuel energy, the ratio increased for the energy input to energy output from food (Steinhart and Steinhart, 1974) (Fig. 1). Higher yields became the goal. In line with the mechanization that was happening in other industries, crop production began to conform to uniform production patterns. The gradual shift from polyculture to monoculture paralleled the shift of the family farm to the farming industry. After World War II another innovation began to impact the farming industry. When the industries that had been producing explosives for military use found themselves without a market, inorganic nitrogenous fertilizer became available at cheap prices. This change further simplified and standardized crop production. Chemicals were developed to enhance a single crop, reinforcing the monoculture that was developing (Soule and Piper, 1991).

The environmental nutrition model

43

100

50

20 Feedlot beef

Distant fishing Fish protein concentrate

5

1970 1960 1950 1940

sy ste m

Grass fed beef

Intensive eggs

1930

2

U. S. fo od

Calories energy subsidy for one calorie food

10

Coastal fishing

1920

1.0 Range fed beef

Low intensity eggs

1910

Modern milk grass fed

0.5 Low intensity corn

0.2

Intensive corn Intensive potatoes

Soybeans

Intensive rice

Thailand

ltu

Low intensity potatoes

cu

Hunting and gathering

re

0.1

W et ri

ce

.05

Shifting agriculture

Burma China Indonesia

.02

.01

Fig. 1 Graphic summary of the various types of food production: ratio of energy required to food energy delivery. (Reprinted with permission from Steinhart.)

As farms transitioned from multiple crops to a single crop and farmers became more reliant on machinery and chemistry, it was no longer practical to raise animals in the same environment. Thus farm operations segregated crops from animal husbandry. The introduction of penicillin and other

44

Environmental nutrition

antibiotics made it possible to keep many animals in a confined space without uncontrollable epidemics. Feedlots were born. Industrial agriculture with machines, single crop farms, synthetic chemicals, and feedlots define the current food system. With the incorporation of industrial methods agriculture has become an industry with the goal of maximizing production and minimizing labor to realize the highest profits possible. But, because an industrial model has been utilized in a biological system, numerous biological problems have developed in modern agriculture (Soule and Piper, 1991). In our research efforts, the process of developing the ENM helped clarify the sources and impacts of these problems.

Basic food system model Food systems are complex operations, but a basic food system entails the interplay of four separate domains each working discretely, and each impacting the others. These domains are: resource inputs, drivers of demand, food outputs, and waste emissions, as depicted in Fig. 2. The food system receives inputs and generates effects as food goes through a cycle from production to consumption. Two distinct environments, the natural world and human societies, provide respectively the inputs and the drivers, and in turn, are impacted by the outputs of the food system. This simple dynamic is laid out in the basic food system model in Fig. 2. The food system takes inputs from the natural world in the form of natural resources. Working together, these inputs produce food for human societies. Food is the desired output of the system. However, the food system also produces undesirable outcomes in the form of emissions and waste. Less emphasized, and sometimes even ignored, is the importance of societal demands as a major driver of the food system. Societal demands

Resources

D

riv

ut

er

Inp

Food production

Fig. 2 Basic food system model.

t

Waste emissions

pu ut O

t

pu

ut

O

Food

The environmental nutrition model

45

In traditional agriculture, the natural world provided land, water, and solar radiation. Soil nutrients and energy from human and animal labor interacted with seeds and animals to produce the desired outcome of food. In the current food system, the interactions between human societies and the natural world are no longer this straightforward. Animal manure no longer provides the dominant fertilizer added to grow food. The soil that used to be nurtured by animal waste is now amended by chemical fertilizer. And pesticides are the primary means of fending against infestation by insects and fungus. Additionally, many aspects of the food system depend on industrial processes. For example, in most cases, food is now processed before it is purchased and consumed. Fossil fuels and electricity are part of every aspect of producing food and bringing it to market. A diversity of human societies exerts consumer preferences, cultural norms, and social dynamics. To meet market demands, modern industrial agriculture has responded and adapted in ways that allowed for remarkable growth in food output. While this is a tremendous benefit, there are unexpected consequences. The introduction of fossil fuels, monoculture farming, feed lots, and a myriad of synthetic chemicals has impacted the natural world in ways that are now a threat to its existence.

The environmental nutrition model We developed the ENM with the intention of providing a comprehensive view of the interconnections of the different domains of the food system. The ENM has gone through several iterations as more evidence is gathered on each of the four domains at work in the production of food. It is the interactions between the domains of the food systems that are the most compelling. Our model in Fig. 3 is offered as a stimulus to focus the discussion and lead to solutions. The ENM is a conceptual framework that encompasses the multifaceted associations of the food system with the physical and social worlds, and its intended and undesirable consequences in the environment and the health of populations. As with any system it has inputs and outputs. These inputs and outputs are taken from and given to both the natural world and human societies. The food system takes inputs in the form of natural resources: land, solar radiation, and water. But fossil fuel energy, electricity, and synthetic chemicals are also among the inputs from the natural world. These work together to produce food for human societies from agriculture, livestock, and

46

Environmental nutrition

Natural world

Human societies

Resources • Land • Solar radiation • Water • Fossil fuel • Chemicals

Demands Food life cycle • Agriculture • Livestock • Fisheries

Pollution • Solid & fluid waste • Biological contaminants • Gas emissions (GHG)

• • • • • •

Transportation Processing Packaging Retail Cooking Disposal

• Consumer preferences • Policy • Technology • Marketing • Social dynamic

Food Consumption patterns of diverse populations

Undernourished

• Malnutrition • Deficiency diseases

Overfed • Obesity • Chronic diseases

Fig. 3 The environmental nutrition model.

fisheries. The food follows a life cycle. From the fields and feedlots, food is transported to facilities, where more fossil fuel, more water, more chemicals, and electricity are used to process and package the food. Eventually the food makes its way to the grocery store where it is kept clean and cool by means of electricity and water. Finally the food is purchased by a consumer, taken to a home in a vehicle that runs on fossil fuel, stored in an electric refrigerator, and cooked with an electric or gas appliance. The waste is disposed in the sewer and landfills, or is recycled. Thus, the life cycle of food includes the production, transportation, processing, packaging, storage, retail, preparation, consumption, and disposal practices employed. This abbreviated description of the food life cycle, from production to disposal, emphasizes that at every step there is use of energy and other resources with corresponding environmental impacts. Through the ENM, the inputs and outputs related to the whole life cycle are considered and quantified for individual food items, which are used to assess and compare whole diets. Our depiction of this cycle with the icons in Fig. 3 exhibits the crossover from the natural world to the world of human societies. But human societies are also an input in this process. Societal demands are major drivers of

The environmental nutrition model

47

the food system and are specifically considered in the ENM. The type and amounts of foods produced (and brought to market) are directly related to the demands on the food system. Consumer preferences are often shaped by marketing strategies. Advances in technology influence consumer demands and bear on availability. And government policies protect, stimulate, and stifle what foods are produced and available to purchase. These inputs from human societies require that the production of food meets the consumption patterns of diverse populations in ever-increasing quantities and with specific qualities. But some of society’s drivers of the food system could be transformed to change consumer demands, thereby impacting the life cycle of the food system. The type and amounts of foods consumed directly impact the health of individuals and populations. The extremes of this diversity of food choices and consumption ranges contain those who are underfed and those who are overfed. Both of these groups experience a unique set of challenges. Those who are undernourished struggle with malnutrition and are susceptible to the diseases that follow. Those who are overfed with excess calories (from diets high in animal-sourced and heavily processed foods) risk obesity and a number of diet-related chronic diseases. Large and growing segments of the world population follow these unhealthy diets contributing not only to the global burden of human disease but also to the environmental degradation of our planet. Modern agricultural practices are polluting the environment upon which future food production depends. The current food system generates an enormous amount of solid and fluid waste such as animal manures and chemicals runoff to the waterways. If not treated properly these wastes can create unfavorable conditions for aquatic life, adversely affect soil productivity, and cause the land to become infertile (Meena et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2017). Contemporary agricultural practices have also given rise to significant biological contamination of food and water. A major source of pollution is greenhouse gas emissions. The current food system is responsible for some 15%–25% of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (Gerber et al., 2013; Vermeulen et al., 2012), thus majorly contributing to global warming and climate change.

Applications of the model The ENM captures the food system as a whole. But the strength of the model is the way it helps to analyze how the four domains interact with each

48

Environmental nutrition

other in the physical and social worlds. Differing fields of science might be interested in examining one specific process to determine how it affects another process. As a team of nutrition and environmental scientists, we were particularly concerned on how food production (and consumption) affects pollution and vice versa: how pollution upsets the food supply. The lower part of Fig. 4 is a pictorial analysis of this issue, and depicts the relationship between climate change and food security. Crop yields are more negatively affected across most tropical areas than at higher latitudes, and impacts become more severe with an increasing degree of climate change. Large parts of the world where crop productivity is expected to decline under climate change coincide with countries where there is already a high burden of hunger (Wheeler and von Braun, 2013). Warmer air temperatures have already affected the length of the growing season in some regions. Changes in temperatures and growing seasons might also affect the proliferation and the spreading of harmful species such as insects, invasive weeds, or diseases, all of which might in turn affect crop yields (European Environment Agency, 2015).

Natural world

Human societies

Resources • Land • Solar radiation • Water • Fossil fuel • Chemicals

Demands Food life cycle • Consumer • Agriculture • Livestock • Fisheries

• Transportation • Processing • Packaging • Retail • Cooking • Disposal

Pollution

preferences Policy Technology Marketing Social dynamic

Food

• Solid & fluid waste • Biological contaminants • Gas emissions (GHG)

Climate change

• • • •

Consumption patterns of diverse populations

Undernourished

Low regional food yields

Food insecurity

• Malnutrition • Deficiency diseases

Overfed • Obesity • Chronic diseases

Fig. 4 Application of the ENM, including an example of the relationships between climate change and food security.

The environmental nutrition model

49

Given the interrelationships, it is essential to integrate food demand with its production, and other relevant aspects shown in the model such as human health and environmental impacts. To demonstrate a specific application, we conducted a case study of beef (Sabate et al., 2016). Following the model, the production of one kilogram of beef in the United States requires the inputs of 10 kilograms of grain feed, more than 8000 liters of water, almost 8000 kilojoules of energy, 150 grams of fertilizer, 7 grams of pesticides, and 21 square meters of land (Boucher, 2012; Marlow et al., 2014; Sabate et al., 2016). The environmental outputs include solid, liquid, and air pollution, including greenhouse gases. On the societal side inputs involve marketing, cultural norms, and government policies such as subsidies to farmers and/or assistance programs, both of which increase its availability to consumers. Relevant nutrients obtained from beef consumption is an output, but so is a contribution to chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers (Wolk, 2016). Compared to producing one kilogram of protein from kidney beans, the production of 1 kilogram of protein from beef requires approximately 18 times more land, 10 times more water, 9 times more fossil fuel, 12 times more fertilizer, and 10 times more pesticide (Sabate et al., 2016). This has implications for efficiency regarding the resource inputs required and the nutrient provision of each food (Cassidy et al., 2013). Beans offer a balanced macronutrient ratio in relation to human needs, given the relatively high content of carbohydrate, ample protein, and lower fat. They are rich sources of minerals and phytochemicals. In addition, consuming beans confers health benefits, including longevity (Darmadi-Blackberry et al., 2004). This kind of analysis can help identify foods that are both sustainable and healthy. It can also aid in determining a set of sustainability and social indicators needed for transitions to new norms. Some policy and technological changes can be identified by this type of analysis. It is crucial that the science of nutrition and the science of ecology become integrated if the food system is to become sustainable (Tagtow et al., 2014; Sabate et al., 2016; Rose et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019). Many are undertaking research into food production, but until now research has largely concentrated on the direct effects of climate change, such as crop growth and the distribution of agricultural pests and diseases. Also, studies have understandably focused on areas that can be easily investigated, often through analyzing single-factor changes. The complex and multilayered features of food security that require integrations of biophysical, economic, and social factors have been avoided. Current knowledge of food security

50

Environmental nutrition

impacts from climate change is dramatically lacking in coverage across all dimensions of food security (Wheeler and von Braun, 2013). These and other complex problems affecting the current food system can perhaps be better understood with the model we offer. It is our hope that this tool will aid and compel differing sciences and technology sectors to work together to address the multilayered challenges that are before us.

Organization of the following book chapters This book is structured around the major concepts of the ENM. Each of the four chapters in the following sections of this book presents one of the global challenges for environmental nutrition. These directly relate to the four domains of the food system: resource inputs, drivers of demand, food outputs, and waste emissions. The challenges are: the constraints of the natural resources on the food system, the unsustainability that society’s demands have placed on the food system, the adverse health and nutritional outcomes on large segments of the population due to the types and amounts of food produced and consumed, and the undesirable environmental degradation related to current food production practices. The book chapters after the following section present a range of solution-orientated approaches that can concurrently address the diet-health-environment trilemma. These include the development and utilization of food production methods that are resource efficient and have less environmental impacts, a considerable reduction of food losses and food waste along the supply chain, and appropriate shifts in food choices and diet patterns of individuals and populations.

References Boucher, D.H., 2012. Grade A Choice?: Solutions for Deforestation-Free Meat. Union of Concerned Scientists, Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions, Cambridge, MA. Available from: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/ assets/documents/global_warming/Solutions-for-Deforestation-Free-Meat.pdf. Cassidy, E.S., et al., 2013. Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (3), 034015. Available from: http://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf. Darmadi-Blackberry, I., Wahlqvist, M.L., Kouris-Blazos, A., et al., 2004. Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of survival in older people of different ethnicities. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 13 (2), 217–220. Available from: http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/ 13/2/217.pdf. European Environment Agency, 2015. Agriculture and Climate Change. Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/agriculture-and-climatechange. (Accessed 13 February 2019).

The environmental nutrition model

51

Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., 2013. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf. Kumar, A., Roy, A., Priyadarshinee, R., Sengupta, B., Malaviya, A., Dasguptamandal, D., Mandal, T., 2017. Economic and sustainable management of wastes from rice industry: combating the potential threats. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (34), 26279–26296. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0293-7. Marlow, H.J., Harwatt, H., Soret, S., Sabate, J., 2014. Comparing the water, energy, pesticide and fertilizer usage for the production of foods consumed by different dietary types in California. Public Health Nutr. 18 (13), 2425–2432. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1368980014002833. Meena, M.D., Yadav, R.K., Narjary, B., Yadav, G., Jat, H.S., Sheoran, P., Meena, M.K., Antil, R.S., Meena, B.L., Singh, H.V., et al., 2019. Municipal solid waste (MSW): strategies to improve salt affected soil sustainability: a review. Waste Manage. 84, 38–53. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.020. Reid, J.F., 2011. The Impact of Mechanization on Agriculture. Fall Issue of the Bridge Linking Engineering and Society. Natl. Acad. Eng. 41 (3), 22–39. Available from: https:// www.nae.edu/19582/Bridge/52548/52645.aspx. Rose, D., Heller, M.C., Roberto, C.A., 2019. Position of the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior: the importance of including environmental sustainability in dietary guidance. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 51 (1), 3–15.e1. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jneb.2018.07.006. Sabate, J., Sranacharoenpong, K., Harwatt, H., Wien, M., Soret, S., 2014. The environmental cost of protein food choices. Public Health Nutr. 18 (11), 2067–2073. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980014002377. Sabate, J., Harwatt, H., Soret, S., 2016. Environmental nutrition: a new frontier for public health. Am. J. Public Health 106 (5), 815–821. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2105/ ajph.2016.303046. Soule, J., Piper, J., 1991. Farming in Nature’s Image an Ecological Approach to Agriculture. Island Press, Washington, DC. Steinhart, C.E., Steinhart, J.S., 1974. Energy. Sources, Use and Role in Human Affairs. Duxbury Press, North Scituate. Tagtow, A., Robien, K., Bergquist, E., Bruening, M., Dierks, L., Hartman, B.E., RobinsonO’Brien, R., Steinitz, T., Tahsin, B., Underwood, T., et al., 2014. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: standards of professional performance for registered dietitian nutritionists (competent, proficient, and expert) in sustainable, resilient, and healthy food and water systems. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114 (3), 475–488.e24. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2013.11.011. Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., Ingram, J.S., 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37 (1), 195–222. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608. Wheeler, T., von Braun, J., 2013. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341, 508–513. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239402. Willett, W., Rockstrom, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., et al., 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 (10170), 447–492. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (18)31788-4. Wolk, A., 2016. Potential health hazards of eating red meat. J. Intern. Med. 281 (2), 106–122. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12543.

52

Environmental nutrition

Further reading Anon, 2016. Agriculture and Climate Change. European Environment Agency. Available from:https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/agriculture-andclimate-change. (Accessed 13 February 2019). Sabate, J., Soret, S., 2014. Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Suppl. 1), 476S–4782S. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113. 071522.

CHAPTER 4

Natural resource constraints on the food system D.L. Marrin

Introduction Increasing global demands for food is occurring at the same time that water shortages, land and energy restrictions, climate change, and environmental pollution are escalating in many parts of the world. As is the case with all anthropogenic systems, the global food system is totally dependent on the planet’s natural resources and must operate within the constraints of those resources, whether they are renewable or finite (nonrenewable). The challenge for early humans was obtaining enough to eat given their primitive techniques for finding, acquiring, preparing, and preserving food. By contrast, the challenge for postmodern humans with their advanced techniques for extracting resources from the environment is not exceeding the capacity of the natural world to meet the nutritional demands of a growing population. Often overlooked in this challenge is the obligatory sharing of global resources among humans and the other life forms that are directly or indirectly responsible for supporting the food system. The intrinsic relationships between environmental and nutritional sciences have recently been suggested as a focus of public health in order to balance the requirements of food supply, human wellbeing, and environmental health (Sabate et al., 2016). The field of environmental nutrition explores complex relationships within the food system, a subset of which pertains to natural resource constraints. This chapter identifies some of those constraints and discusses how they can be evaluated or what steps might be taken to alleviate them. Particular emphasis is placed on the use of resource footprints to assess the demands of the food system. Footprints quantify the natural resources embedded in foods and can be assessed on a global, regional, or product basis. Resource constraints can also be analyzed in terms of a nexus, representing the complex and dynamic interactions among resource sectors (e.g., water, energy, food, land, ecosystems) that are difficult to address independently. Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00004-7

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

55

56

Environmental nutrition

Water constraints Water requirements The single largest use of water by humans is the production of food. Based on water use data from 1996 to 2005, about 7400 billion cubic meters per year (BCM/y) were dedicated to crop production and another 960 BCM/y were used for the production of animals as pasture and feed sources (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). These volumes represent about 92% of the total freshwater water use, such that the remaining 8% is devoted to either domestic water supply or the production of industrial goods. Add to this total the estimated 25%–30% of freshwater that is wasted annually, along with a projected 40% shortfall in global freshwater availability by the year 2030, and it is not unexpected that much of the world is already experiencing moderate to severe water shortages (Ahuja, 2015; SchusterWallace and Sandford, 2015). Some experts now consider the shortage of water for producing sufficient food to nourish a global population as one of the greatest threats to global security (AAB, 2012). Paradoxically, the threat is not simply related to the total volume of usable freshwater, but rather to the unequal distribution (both spatially and temporally) of water resources on the planet that, in turn, sets the stage for regional conflicts. This distribution inequality also involves the quality of water that is available for meeting the needs of humans (e.g., drinking, irrigation, cooling, manufacturing) and the environment (e.g., soil moisture, river flows, lake levels, wildlife). Not all crops or animals require the same amount of water for their production, whether calculated according to the mass or calories of food provided. The first two columns on Table 1 list the volume of water required to produce 1 kg and 1 kcal, respectively, of the listed foods. With the exception of nuts, plant-based foods have lesser water demands (on a gravimetric basis) than do meats. Similarly, animal-based foods other than meats (i.e., eggs, milk, butter) have water demands that are generally intermediate between those of plant-based foods and meats. On a caloric basis, plant-based foods are collectively more water efficient than are animal-based foods, although milk and butter are relatively water-efficient exceptions. Cereals (grains) and sugar crops are the most water-efficient foods per kilocalorie provided, whereas poultry and beef are the least efficient. The water requirements of fish vary widely depending on whether they are freshwater or marine and farmed or wild. Farmed freshwater fish have the largest water footprint, whereas wild marine fishes have the smallest.

Natural resource constraints on the food system

57

Table 1 Global averages for the total water, blue water, and gray water required to produce 1 kg of different foods Foods

Total water per kg (liters)

Sugar crops 200 Vegetables/roots* 350 Fruits 960 Cereals (grains) 1600 Oil crops 2400 Pulses (legumes) 4100 Nuts 9100 Milk 1000 Eggs 3300 Butter 5600 Chicken (poultry) 4300 Pork 6000 Sheep & goat 8800 Beef 15,000

Total water per Blue water kcal (liters) per kg (liters)

Gray water per kg (liters)

0.69 0.91 2.1 0.51 0.81 1.2 3.6 1.8 2.3 0.72 3.0 2.2 4.3 10

15 64 89 180 120 730 680 72 430 390 470 620 53 450

52 30 150 230 220 140 1400 86 240 470 310 460 460 550

*Mean values calculated for the two foods. Also listed is the total water required to produce 1 kcal of the foods. Based on data presented by Hoekstra (2012).

Gephart et al. (2014) evaluated the total water footprint of marine fish by comparing it to the amount of land-based protein necessary to replace fish. The smaller water footprint of marine protein could result in global freshwater savings of almost 5%, but some regions could realize as much as a 50% savings. Unfortunately, overfishing of the oceans is already a global problem and fish represent less than 17% of the animal-based protein (6.5% of the total protein) consumed worldwide (FAO, 2016).

Water footprints A water footprint is defined as the amount of water that is consumed (i.e., no longer available for immediate reuse) to generate a product or service (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011). The water footprint of a food product includes the volume required for all natural and anthropogenic processes necessary to produce and prepare that food for consumption. When goods are traded or sold, this embedded water is frequently referred to as virtual. Total water footprints include the sum of three types of water that are distinguished on the basis of their source.

58

Environmental nutrition

Green water is the rainfall directly utilized by food crops or the plants and grasses that feed grazing animals. The more familiar blue water includes lakes, rivers, and aquifers that serve as sources for domestic, industrial, and irrigated agriculture use. The utilization of blue water for agriculture generally results in greater environmental impacts than does green water and the former is often a limited resource. Finally, gray water represents the volume required to dilute contaminants produced primarily by agriculture and industry to concentrations that meet water quality standards for human health or the environment. Food production is usually dominated by green water, except in arid regions where blue irrigation water is a major contributor. The total water footprint of foods varies widely based on how they are grown, processed and transported, as well as their trophic level (e.g., producers, herbivores, carnivores) and generation of pollutants. Generally, vegetables (leaves and roots) possess the smallest water footprints, whereas beef has the largest water footprint (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011, 2012). Except for nuts and milk, plant-based foods require less blue water (as irrigation) per unit mass of food generated than do animal-based foods (see Table 1). The irrigation requirements for the latter are predominantly for the production of animal feed crops such as alfalfa, corn, and soybeans. As indicated in Table 1, gray water requirements vary substantially for both plant-based and animal-based foods depending on the volume of water required for cultivation, processing, and treating their chemical and biological wastes. Meats have a larger gray water footprint than do either plantbased foods or other animal-based foods (e.g., dairy products). Organic crops are grown without the use of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers and have a gray water footprint substantially lower (as much as 98% for soybeans) than those of conventionally grown crops (Ercin et al., 2011). In addition, organic farming utilizes cultivation and composting techniques that reduce soil evaporation, thus conserving green and/or blue water. Based on total water footprints for 250 foods, an average of 15% less water was required for foods produced via organic production than those produced via conventional production (Hoertenhuber, 2012).

Water use efficiency A number of factors determine the water efficiency of producing food. In addition to crop type, water use efficiency varies with irrigation methods and sources (for blue water), soil enhancements (for blue and green water),

Natural resource constraints on the food system

59

and chemical applications (for gray water). Two of the most common irrigation methods are surface flooding and sprinklers, whereby water is delivered through furrows and channels or aerially sprayed on the tops of plants. Irrigation efficiencies for surface and sprinkler systems are reportedly 60% and 75%, respectively, whereas drip irrigation (applicable for some crops) is 90% efficient (Brower et al., 1989). Drip irrigation systems are often the most expensive to install and maintain because extensive lengths of tubing must be installed below ground in the root zone of plants. Alternative sources of irrigation include reclaimed water, harvested rainwater (for smaller plots), and even saline water. Wastewater treated to at least secondary levels and then disinfected has been used to irrigate crops in some US states for decades; however, applying reclaimed water to edible parts of the crops is restricted (Parsons et al., 2010). As of 2001, almost half of the reclaimed, or recycled, water produced in California was used by agriculture. Due to the slightly higher salinity and sodicity of reclaimed water, compared to that of conventional irrigation sources, the water requirements of crops are somewhat greater to facilitate the leaching of salts (Parsons et al., 2010). Using even higher salinity waters for agriculture is feasible if low saline water can be applied for a portion of the crop’s life cycle and if mineral (ion) ratios in the soil are managed (Minhas, 1996). Soil enhancements for conserving water range from techniques as simple as leveling fields to prevent the surface runoff of irrigation water and amending soils with organic matter (e.g., food scraps, livestock and logging wastes) to retain soil moisture and provide a natural fertilizer (USEPA, 2016a). More sophisticated enhancements such as adjusting the clay content and ion exchange capacities of soils can be used to adsorb or mineralize pollutants that would otherwise reach the underlying groundwater (Aguilar et al., 2011). Agriculture is the world’s largest polluter of surface and ground waters, primarily via the application of organic chemicals and inorganic fertilizers that are transported via water runoff or infiltration. The large gray water footprint of food production not only reduces the availability of local blue water resources, but also adds to the volume of virtual water associated with importing and exporting foods. Food accounts for about 88% of the virtual water that is traded globally, compared to only about 12% for industrial products (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). The virtual water trade is controlled primarily by the demands of wealthy importing nations, rather than by efforts to balance the unequal distribution of global water resources (Tamea et al., 2014). In an effort to address regional water shortages, Hoekstra and Wiedmann (2004) have

60

Environmental nutrition

suggested setting caps on the exploitation of specific water resources (e.g., rivers, aquifers) that are based on maximum sustainable levels. Blue water footprints are seasonally exceeded for about half of the world’s river basins and could be reduced by limiting water withdrawals, perhaps compelling food producers to make more water-efficient choices.

Energy constraints Energy requirements The FAO (2011) estimates that 30% of the world’s total energy consumption and 22% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are related to the food sector. Whereas on-farm crop production accounts for only about 5% of the worldwide energy demand, the majority of the on-farm energy demand is related to the production of nitrogen fertilizers that are required to produce the high yield crops of conventional agriculture (Khan and Hanjra, 2009). In arid regions, the use of electricity to pump groundwater (blue water) from wells and convey it to crops can exceed that of fertilizer as the single largest use of agriculture-related energy. This energy cost is frequently overlooked in regions where governments subsidize electricity prices for agriculture. As a result, the overdraft of aquifers requires even more energy for pumping as water levels in unconfined aquifers decline or deeper confined aquifers are exploited. Surprisingly, the off-farm energy requirement for food-related activities is greatest for household storage and preparation. According to 1997 statistics for the United States, packaging, transporting, and selling food products require less energy (in terms of fuel or electricity use) than storing or preparing it (Heller and Keoleian, 2000). Hence, consumers have an opportunity to influence energy, as well as water, conservation via the ways that they store, prepare, and dispose of food in their own homes. Another off-farm power requirement is transporting water to irrigate crops in arid regions. For example, the Central Valley of California produces about half of all the fruits, vegetables, and nuts grown in the United States (CDFA, 2013); however, much of the irrigation water must be pumped long distances from elsewhere in the state. Based on the production of a unit weight of food, grains and fruits/vegetables are the least energy-consumptive, whereas beef and pork are the most energy-consumptive (see Fig. 1). Producing a kilogram of beef requires more than 20 times the amount of electricity (measured in kW h) of producing a kilogram of corn or carrots and about 7 times more electricity than producing a kilogram of chicken. Cheese and eggs require 5–8 times less electrical energy than does an equal mass of beef, and a kilogram of milk

Natural resource constraints on the food system

61

Fig. 1 Electrical energy required and carbon generated to produce 1 kg of different foods. Energy estimates (kW h) for plant-based foods are based on data presented by Hendrickson (1997), and estimates for animal-based foods on data presented by Ghanta (2010). Carbon equivalents (as kg carbon dioxide) of GHGs associated with producing 1 kg of food are based on data presented by the EWG (2011).

requires 40 times less electricity. Even on a caloric basis (data not shown on Fig. 1), grains require the least input of electrical energy and meat products require the largest energy input (Eshel and Martin, 2006).

Energy footprints and efficient use An energy footprint approximates the amount of energy (often expressed as electrical energy or fuel equivalents) required to create a product. Because electricity is derived predominantly from the burning of fossil fuels, energy footprints are closely related to carbon footprints. An estimated 20% of the world’s energy footprint is dedicated to food, and 17% of the United States’ total fossil fuels are used for food production (Aiking, 2011; Horrigan et al., 2002). The latter figure does not include the personal transportation (e.g., cars, buses, trains) required to access food and relocate it to where it is consumed. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (2014) suggests that one of the primary means of increasing the energy efficiency of food production is switching to low-carbon and renewable energy sources. Fishing is one of

62

Environmental nutrition

the most energy-inefficient methods of producing food (on a mass basis) because the commercial fleet burns over 600 L of fossil fuel per ton of catch (FAO, 2011). Retrofitting the fleet to more fuel-efficient engines or switching to the newly introduced hybrid propulsion system (using both diesel engines and electric motors) could improve fishing’s energy efficiency. Similarly, low tillage practices could reportedly reduce fuel requirements for on-farm cultivation by as much as 70%. Finally, reversing the current trend of transporting more food products over longer distances, either via land or sea, could contribute to increasing the energy efficiency of the global food system.

Water-energy-food nexus Quantifying water and energy footprints can be a relatively complex process for many reasons. Among them is that water, energy, and food production are mutually dependent on each other in a relationship known as a nexus. While the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus will be specifically addressed in a subsequent section, the interdependence of water and energy is of particular interest because the latter is projected to increase 33% worldwide by 2035 (Connor and Winpenny, 2014). Essentially, water is required to produce, transport, and utilize almost all forms of energy, just as energy is required to extract, collect, treat, and distribute water. The quantities of water required to produce electricity depend on the sources of energy. For example, coal and natural gas require 1–2 L of water to produce a kilogram of fuel, crude oil requires slightly less than 4 L, and biofuels require almost 10 L (Euromoney Energy, 2014). Burning these fuels to generate the electricity that powers water pumps or treatment processes demands additional blue water for cooling purposes and gray water for diluting the resulting pollutants. The ability of an environmental perturbation to increase the demand for both water and energy may be illustrated by drought, which often leads to the expansion of irrigation networks. These networks increase both energy and water demands, further depleting water resources and intensifying the drought that, in turn, requires more energy (Connor and Winpenny, 2014). Peter Warshall (2001) observed that every recipe for producing more water requires energy and every recipe for producing more energy requires water, thus forming a positive feedback loop that always requires additional capital. Previously discussed methods for increasing irrigation efficiency to conserve water may also result in energy savings of 20% to perhaps 50%

Natural resource constraints on the food system

63

(Kulkarni, 2011); moreover, people reducing their meat consumption and replacing the lost calories, if necessary, with plant-based foods could achieve similar energy savings without the costs of purchasing and installing upgraded irrigation systems. It is unrealistic to expect entire populations to make large shifts in eating habits or every farm to replace its irrigation systems, but incremental progress on either front could reduce the stress on global resources (Kulkarni, 2011; Aiking et al., 2006). The practice of agroecology has been proposed to reduce both the energy and water required to produce food by substituting conventional large-scale monocultures with smaller-scale plots that cultivate diverse crops among the native vegetation (Wezel et al., 2009). Similarly, organic farming systems have reportedly decreased fossil fuel inputs 15%–60% for common grain and root crops (Pimentel, 2006; Ziesemer, 2007). Much of the energy savings is attributed to the absence of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which demand substantial quantities of energy to manufacture and to subsequently remediate in soil and water. With respect to livestock production, energy savings of 50% were reported for natural grass–fed systems compared to similar-sized grain-fed systems (Pimentel, 2006). Even for grain-fed systems, producing corn via traditional farming methods uses less than 5% of the energy required for producing the same mass of corn via modern industrial farming practices (FAO, 2000).

Ecological constraints Land According to the World Bank, just under 40% of the planet’s land mass in 1991 was devoted to agriculture, though this maximum has since declined slightly as a result of technologies having increased crop yields (Ausubel et al., 2013). Much of this agricultural land represents converted forests or drylands used for raising livestock or for growing crops that feed animals. Agricultural expansion into forests is perhaps the most problematic from the perspective of global climate change; however, the expansion of large population centers into adjacent wetlands and farmlands has resulted in the reduction of habitat for fisheries and the loss of prime agricultural land for crops. The pressure to produce more food from existing lands has also intensified the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides to further increase crop yields. The increased use of chemical amendments has raised the energy requirement of producing the same mass of food and has impacted the quality of available water resources. Surface runoff from farms is a major factor in

Environmental nutrition

64

creating the destructive algal blooms that have affected lakes throughout the world. Residual chemicals and loss of organic matter diminish the quality of soil, which affects crop yields and requires more chemical amendments that further impact soils. As soils become more toxic in industrial nations and more nutrient-depleted in developing nations, the necessity to access more land for cultivation escalates. Minimal soil tilling, multiple cropping, spreading crop residues on soils, and similar practices have been proposed for maintaining soils over a longer timeframe and reducing the demand for additional agricultural land (Ho, 2004). Similar to water and energy, the amount of land required to produce food varies depending on which crops or animals are raised. Fig. 2 presents the area of land (in m2) required to produce the average recommended daily number of kilocalories for an adult, which amounts to 2250 kcal based on a general guideline of 2500 kcal for men and 2000 kcal for women. As was the trend for water and energy, beef requires the most land and grains require the least land—almost 30 times less than beef. According to these data, meats demand an average of 3 times more land than milk and eggs to produce the same number of kilocalories and greater than 8 times more land to produce those same kilocalorie from plant-based foods.

Land required (m2)

100

10

1

Fig. 2 Amount of land (m2) required to provide the average daily adult requirement of 2250 kcal for different foods, as based on data presented by Peters et al. (2007).

Natural resource constraints on the food system

65

With respect to meat, a frequently cited recommendation is that people consume animals that roam freely, are not given pharmaceuticals, and eat their natural foods. This advice addresses health concerns with factory farms or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where animals are confined to crowded enclosures and fed mixtures of meats, grains, and various additives (Hribar, 2010). Absent a decrease in global meat consumption, it is unlikely that sufficient land is available for everyone to access naturally raised animals. CAFOs were developed to provide affordable animal-based foods without substantially increasing the area of rangeland. Livestock production already accounts for 70% of all agricultural lands, as well as most of the genetically modified corn and soybeans grown worldwide (Aiking, 2011).

Oceans & freshwaters Wild caught fishes represented about 56% of the total fish mass consumed worldwide in 2014, and almost nine-tenths of these wild caught fish were marine, as opposed to freshwater (FAO, 2016). The catch of both freshwater and marine fishes has increased over the last decade; however, the share of marine stocks that are within biologically sustainable limits has declined over the same period, such that almost 90% are now considered either overfished or fished to capacity. Hence, marine fisheries are depleted to the point that commercially valuable species such as anchoveta and herring are in perilous decline, and the combined stocks of 25 major fish species are declining with no potential for increased production (FAO, 2016). Wild freshwater fish comprise a small percentage of the total mass consumed because they typically represent subsistence or recreational catches. Whereas freshwater fish stocks are currently more sustainable than marine stocks, the only major increase in fish production over the last decade has been for farmed species, which constitute 75% of all aquaculture products (the remaining 25% are freshwater plants and seaweeds) (FAO, 2016). Similar to CAFOs for livestock, health concerns for both animals and consumers have been raised with regard to the presence of pathogens, antibiotics, and pesticides in both farmed fish and invertebrates from freshwater facilities (Sapkota et al., 2008). Although wild fish stocks have been seriously depleted over several decades, aquaculture is not necessarily a sustainable substitute because carnivorous fishes are net fish consumers and herbivorous fishes must rely on protein sources from terrestrial agriculture that, in turn, have substantial energy and land demands (Aiking, 2011). The global blue water

66

Environmental nutrition

requirement for aquaculture is minimal compared to that for conventional agriculture; however, the gray water demand per unit mass of food or protein generated can be quite high. Water quality issues related to aquaponics, a practice whereby farmed fishes and hydroponically grown plants are combined in an aquaculture system, have been raised with regard to the observed effect of wastes, biochemicals, parasites, and fertilizers on the health of fishes (Yildiz et al., 2017).

Crop nutrients Whereas major nutrients required by crops include nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, and magnesium, it is nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) that have become problematic from the perspective of constraints on food production and imbalances in global cycles. The natural cycling of these two nutrients is insufficient to meet the demands of agriculture; hence, humans are forced to mine finite deposits of phosphate that are located in only a few countries (Sutton et al., 2012). Conversely, nitrogen gas comprises almost 80% of the air we breathe; however, it must be converted into other forms (e.g., ammonia) via processes that utilize about 2% of the world’s energy. The management of N and P over a range of different spatial and temporal scales has been identified as a goal for improving food security and, concurrently, conserving resources such as water, air, soil, climate, and biodiversity (Sutton et al., 2012). With respect to constraints on water and land resources, some of the most prominent threats include N- and P-containing fertilizers, which are often overapplied on crops and persist at high concentrations in soils or enter surface and ground waters via runoff and infiltration, respectively. In addition, ammonia gas derived from nitrogen fertilizers and CAFO wastes is released into the air where it is converted to a pollutant or is eventually deposited (either in wet or dry forms) and transformed to nitric acid, killing fish and plants as it pollutes water and soil (Tennesen, 2010). Although aquaculture produces a lesser volume of waste than agriculture on a global scale, the confinement of fishes in a small space produces highly concentrated nitrogenous wastes that are released into coastal or freshwater ecosystems. These eutrophicated ecosystems serve as habitat for organisms that are consumed directly by humans or that support other food species. Much of the N and P waste (up to 75% of that applied as fertilizer) is due to imbalances with other essential nutrients and to acidification or degradation of soils from over- or under-fertilizing crops (Sutton et al., 2012). While

Natural resource constraints on the food system

67

insufficient P supplies threaten our current system of agriculture, the indiscriminant use of N threatens food sources as seemingly remote as marine fisheries. The overconsumption of animal products in exacerbating resource constraints is once again evident in nutrient issues, whereby an estimated 85% of the crop-containing N in the European Union is fed to livestock compared to only 15% consumed by people (Sutton, 2011). Livestock that once grazed on grasses now consume feed crops (e.g., soybeans, corn), which is partially responsible for the current exceedance of a safe operating boundary for the mobilization of reactive N on the planet. Rockstrom et al. (2009) observed that shifts between stable states of planetary nutrient cycles depend on complex, nonlinear interactions between N and P that alter the biogeochemistry of ecosystems. Proposals to reduce N and P requirements for producing food include increasing nutrient efficiency, recycling N/P from wastewater, and using more animal manure as fertilizer.

Climate Worldwide, about 30% of total GHG loadings to the atmosphere are related to agriculture, with the majority of this 30% attributable to livestock production (Fiala, 2009). Food-related GHG emissions in the United States are largely a function of production (83%), rather than transportation and delivery (15%); hence, which foods are produced is more critical to carbon footprints than where foods are produced (Weber and Matthews, 2008). Fig. 1 displays carbon dioxide equivalents for producing a kilogram of different foods and indicates that meats generate nearly 3 times the GHGs of other animal-based foods and almost 9 times the GHGs of plant-based foods. Red meats are the largest food-related contributors to GHGs and are consumed in industrialized nations at twice the rate recommended for avoiding chronic health problems (EWG, 2011; Marrin, 2014). Regardless of whether GHGs are generated by the belching of cows, the burning of fossil fuels, or the biodegradation of landfill wastes, the associated climate change represents yet another constraint on food production. Modeling horizons for predicting the effects of climate change on food production often extend as far as the year 2100, although many early signs of those effects (e.g., changes in sea level, precipitation patterns, polar ice coverage, and average global temperatures) are already recognizable (Backlund et al., 2008). Indirect effects of climate change, such as more frequent wildfires, severe storms or floods, and soil erosion, have impacted the quantity and quality of agricultural land. Additionally, the combination of increased drought,

68

Environmental nutrition

Table 2 Possible effects of climate change on various food related sectors, as based on data presented by the USEPA (2016b). Sector

Condition

Possible effect

Food crops

Higher temperatures Higher CO2 levels Extreme precipitation Persistent drought Combined factors

Livestock

Higher temperatures Higher CO2 levels Persistent drought Combined factors

Fisheries

Warmer waters Higher salinity Greater acidity

Increased or decreased yields depending on tolerances Possible increased yields, but lower nutritional quality Physical damage or altered growth/ budding patterns Drier soils may not meet minimum water requirements More weeds, insects, and pathogens requiring treatment Acute heat stress, chronic disease, and lower productivity Reduced nutrition of forage may increase feed required Decline in quality/quantity of pasture and feed supplies More parasite and microbial infections needing attention Higher latitude ranges for fishes/ invertebrates and more incidences of stress, disease, and life cycle abnormalities Increased haline stresses and parasite vulnerability Fragility of invertebrate shells and ecosystem resilience

pollution, and land use changes has impacted both the quantity and quality of water available to produce foods (see Table 2). The adequacy of current monitoring systems to evaluate the more far-reaching effects of climate change (e.g., biodiversity, ecosystem health, species distribution and phenology) is uncertain given the measurement complexities (Backlund et al., 2008). Precipitation is expected to increase in some parts of the world and decrease in other parts, affecting water use efficiency and allocation, land requirements, and environmental degradation (Kang et al., 2009). Similarly, crop yields are projected to both increase and decrease depending on latitude, rainfall, and temperature. The associated changes in soil water balances and crop growth periods will ultimately affect food production schedules. Higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could theoretically lead to higher crop yields; however, the nutritional quality of the foods produced

Natural resource constraints on the food system

69

could decline concurrently if plants are stressed by temperature, water availability, or physical and chemical properties of the soil (Kang et al., 2009). Reduced flows in streams or rivers and lower water levels in lakes or reservoirs could negatively impact the habitat and water quality available to freshwater fishes. Whereas some marine species would be able to migrate to more optimal locations in avoiding heat stress, anoxia, and loss of food resources, freshwater organisms inhabit much smaller water bodies where they will either adapt quickly or face local extinctions. Ocean acidification is likely to present a constraint on marine resources as fishes are stressed via acidosis, coral reefs are impacted via reduced growth, and the shells of edible invertebrates are compromised via lower carbonate concentrations in seawater (Bowles et al., 2013). Gary Nabham (2013) suggested several strategies for maximizing food production in the face of climate change. Some of these strategies include applying locally produced compost to soils for moisture retention, utilizing harvested rainwater for small-scale irrigation, preserving crop seeds to retain genetic adaptations for various environmental tolerances, and shifting to perennial agriculture that focuses on edible tree crops and native grass pastures. A related suggestion is substituting ornamental trees and plants in public areas (e.g., parks, roadside planters) with ones that produce edible fruits or vegetables using channeled runoff water as irrigation. Because plants are extremely sensitive to changes in a wide range of environmental conditions in soil, water, air, and sunlight, it is difficult to predict which regions may be the most agriculturally productive or which crops and animals may be raised most successfully.

Discussion A nexus approach As has been discussed throughout this chapter, the major resources required for food production (e.g., water, energy, land) are mutually dependent on each other as a nexus; hence, addressing one necessarily involves changes to all. An example is the 2008 food crisis that was attributed to a combination of higher energy prices, lower crop yields (due to drought-related water insufficiencies), and the conversion of agricultural land from food to fuel (ethanol) crops (Hanlon et al., 2013). Addressing any one of these factors without considering the effects on the others could result in a situation where one factor improves at the expense of the others and, consequently, there is no net progress in alleviating the crisis.

70

Environmental nutrition

One of the factors that is seldom considered and still poorly understood within the nexus is the effect of increased resource demands on the environment as a whole, which is the ultimate source of the energy, water, and land required to sustain the food system. As the environment changes, either in response to natural planetary cycles or to the activities of humans, it creates an imbalance in the nexus that affects the quality, quantity, and/or cost of foods. As the nexus becomes unbalanced, there are inevitable consequences for human health, energy production, water availability, and food production that cannot be addressed independently (Hanlon et al., 2013). Because the nexus describes an intersection of human systems with the natural world, understanding the concurrent interactions among linked resource sectors is critical. One of the approaches to dealing with the nexus includes systems theory, which investigates and describes the organization of both human creations and the natural world as a single entity consisting of elements or variables that possess distinct attributes. Dynamic interactions among system elements are modeled as spatial and temporal relationships (patterns) describing the behavior of a system. Whereas resources and energy are cycled through the system, the focus is on describing the system’s organization and its relationship to the environment. A system’s organization and interactions permit the identification of hierarchies, controls, and feedback mechanisms that govern its balance and adaptability. Elements of the system can be natural or anthropogenic and their nonlinear interactions, which result in complex system changes, are difficult to represent using simple additive or cause-andeffect relationships that assume a linear response of the food system to dynamic changes among its elements. Current systems-based models with elements representing both environmental sectors (e.g., water quality and demand, surface flow, climate, carbon) and socioeconomic sectors (e.g., land use, population, economy, energy, food production) have been developed to evaluate positive (reinforcing) and negative (balancing) feedbacks among the sectors (Popovich et al., 2010). The WEF nexus is modeled as an open system, permitting it to exchange information, resources, and energy with its environment that can be represented on either global or regional scales. Patterns created by the model permit an understanding of how the sectors interact under diverse scenarios of resource limitation that influence food production or supply (Popovich et al., 2010).

Natural resource constraints on the food system

71

The demand side In response to perceived or anticipated resource limitations to food production, much of the attention has focused on supply-side factors that would produce more food by exploiting more resources or putting more land under cultivation. Less attention has been placed on demand-side factors that could decrease the resources required to feed a given population without the need to augment either productivity or resource utilization. Two demandside actions that could alleviate some of the resource constraints on food production are people consuming a greater percentage of plant-based foods and wasting less of the food that is produced. Based on a comparison of lowanimal-product diets and high-animal-product diets that are nutritionally adequate, the former required significantly less resource inputs than the latter and could enhance the environmental sustainability of food production (Marlow et al., 2014). Estimates for total food waste as high as 40% have been ascribed to the United States (Gunders, 2012), where the largest contributor is the retail/ consumer (postproduction) sector. By contrast, most of the food waste in developing nations is a result of preproduction activities such as growing, harvesting, and storing crops. As consumers in industrialized nations have the largest water and carbon footprints resulting from food waste (Marrin, 2016), they also possess the greatest opportunity to reduce the stress on water, energy, and land resources allocated to food that is never eaten. Consumer food waste has been correlated with income level, and the major causes include overbuying in stores, preparing too much for meals, and not consuming products before their expiration dates (Khan and Hanjra, 2009). Similar to food waste, affluent people residing in industrialized nations eat a disproportionate amount of the meat produced in the world, and their overall consumption patterns are a major driver of water problems and food shortages on both local and global scales (Hill, 2013). While red meat has the largest water and energy footprints, reducing its consumption is not the only dietary shift that could address resource constraints on food production. Replacing a portion of the animal-based foods (other than red meat) with plant-based foods and purchasing locally grown or unprocessed foods would contribute to conserving limited resources. Diets promoted for improving the health of people could decrease water and energy footprints by 20%–35% (Marrin, 2014). Although neither dietary changes nor food waste restrictions are likely to appear as regulatory policies for conserving natural

72

Environmental nutrition

resources, at some point the global combination of increasing food requirements and resource constraints may demand it from a practical standpoint.

References AAB, 2012. Water scarcity: the biggest threat to global food security? Newsl. Assoc. Appl. Biol. 75, 1–2. Aguilar, Y., Bautista, F., Dı´az-Pereira, E., 2011. Soil as natural reactors for swine wastewater treatment. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 13, 199–210. Ahuja, S., 2015. Nexus of food, energy, and water. In: Food, Energy, and Water: The Chemistry Connection. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Chapter 1). Aiking, H., 2011. Future protein supply. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22, 112–120. Aiking, H., de Boer, J., Vereijken, J.M., 2006. Sustainable Protein Production and Consumption: Pigs or Peas? Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Ausubel, J.H., Wernick, I.K., Waggoner, P.E., 2013. Peak farmland and the prospect for land sparing. Popul. Dev. Rev. 38 (1), 221–242. Backlund, P., Janetos, A., Shimel, D., 2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the U.S. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC, p. 240. Bowles, D.C., Butler, C.D., Friel, S., 2013. Climate change and health in Earth’s future. Earth’s Future 2, 60–67. Brower, C., Prins, K., Heibloem, M., 1989. Irrigation Water Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. CDFA, 2013. California Agricultural Statistics Review 2012–2013. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA. Connor, R., Winpenny, J., 2014. The water-energy nexus. In: World Water Development Report: Water and Energy. vol. 1. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France (Chapter 1). Ercin, A.E., Aldaya, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. The Water Footprint of Soy Milk and Soy Burger and Equivalent Animal Products. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands. Eshel, G., Martin, P.A., 2006. Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interact. 10, 1–17. Euromoney Energy, 2014. Infographics addressing water and fuels. Available at www. euromoneyenergy.com. EWG, 2011. Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change and Health. Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC. FAO, 2000. The Energy and Agriculture Nexus. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO, 2011. Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO, 2014. The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A New Approach in Support of Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO, 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Fiala, N., 2009. The greenhouse hamburger. Sci. Am. 20 (1), 72–75. Gephart, J.A., Pace, M.L., D’Odorico, P., 2014. Freshwater savings from marine protein consumption. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (1), 014005. Ghanta, P., 2010. List of foods by environmental impact and energy efficiency. Energy, Environment & Ideas. truecostblog.com/2010/list-of-foods-by-environmental-impact-andenergy-efficiency. (Accessed 24 February 2010).

Natural resource constraints on the food system

73

Gunders, D., 2012. Wasted: How America is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC. Hanlon, P., et al., 2013. Food, Water and Energy: Know the Nexus. GRACE Communications Foundation, New York, NY. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., 2000. Life Cycle-Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System. Center for Sustainable Systems, Ann Arbor, MI. Hendrickson, J., 1997. Energy Use in the U.S. Food System: A Summary of Existing Research and Analysis. University of Wisconsin Center for Integrated Agriculture Systems, Madison, WI. Hill, J., 2013. Water for food: international narratives sidelining alternative views. Future Food: J. Food Agric. Soc. 1 (2), 154–161. Ho, M.W., 2004. The answer lies in the soil. Sci. Soc. 21, 41–43. Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy. Anim. Front. 2, 3–8. Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., 2012. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (9), 3232–3237. Hoekstra, A.Y., Wiedmann, T.O., 2004. Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 344, 1114–1117. Hoertenhuber, S., 2012. Water resources: the gentle cycle is organic. In: The Activity Report 2012. The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Vienna, Austria, pp. 30–31. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S., Walker, P., 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect. 10, 445–456. Hribar, C., 2010. Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities. National Association of Local Boards of Health, Bowling Green, OH. Kang, Y., Khan, S., Ma, X., 2009. Climate change impact on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security: a review. Prog. Nat. Sci. 19, 1665–1674. Khan, S., Hanjra, M.A., 2009. Footprints of water and energy inputs in food production— global perspectives. Food Policy 34 (2), 130–140. Kulkarni, S., 2011. Innovative technologies for water saving in irrigated agriculture. Int. J. Water Res. Arid Environ. 1 (3), 226–231. Marlow, H.J., Harwatt, H., Soret, S., Sabate, J., 2014. Comparing the water, energy, pesticide and fertilizer usage for the production of foods consumed by different dietary types in California. Public Health Nutr. 18 (13), 2425–2432. Marrin, D.L., 2014. Reducing water and energy footprints via dietary changes among consumers. Int. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 3, 361–369. Marrin, D.L., 2016. Using water footprints to identify alternatives for conserving local water resources in California. Water 8 (11), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110497. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1577–1600. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415. Minhas, P.S., 1996. Saline water management for irrigation in India. Agric. Water Manag. 30 (1), 1–24. Nabham, G.P., 2013. Our coming food crisis. The New York Times, A19. Parsons, L.R., Sheikh, B., Holden, R., York, D.W., 2010. Reclaimed water as an alternative water source for crop irrigation. HortScience 45 (11), 1626–1629. Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., Fick, G.W., 2007. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirement of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity. Renewable Agric. Food Syst. 22 (2), 145–153.

74

Environmental nutrition

Pimentel, D., 2006. Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture. An Organic Center State of Science Review, Ithaca, NY. Popovich, C.J., Slobodan, S.P., McBean, G.A., 2010. Use of an Integrated System Dynamics Model for Analyzing the Behavior of the Social-Economic-Climatic System in Policy Development. University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Rockstrom, J., et al., 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14 (2), 32–63. Sabate, J., Harwatt, H., Soret, S., 2016. Environmental nutrition: a new frontier for public health. Am. J. Public Health 106 (5), 815–821. Sapkota, A., et al., 2008. Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: current knowledge and future priorities. Environ. Int. 34, 1215–1226. Schuster-Wallace, C.J., Sandford, R., 2015. Water in the World We Want. United Nations University-Institute for Water, Environment and Heath, Hamilton, Canada. Sutton, M.A., et al., 2011. Too much of a good thing. Nature 472, 159–161. Sutton, M.A., et al., 2012. Our Nutrient World: The Challenge to Produce More Food and Energy with Less Pollution. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster, UK. Tamea, S., Carr, J.A., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L., 2014. Drivers of the virtual water trade. Water Resour. Res. 50 (1), 17–28. Tennesen, M., 21 June 2010. Sour showers: acid rain returns—this time it is caused by nitrogen emissions. Scientific American, USA. 4 p. USEPA, 2016a. Water & Energy Efficiency by Sectors: Agriculture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA.epa.gov/region9/waterinfrastructure/ agriculture.html. USEPA, 2016b. Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.epa.gov/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-foodsupply. Warshall, P., 2001. The unholy triumvirate. Whole Earth Mag.(winter issue). 8 p. Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S., 2008. Food-miles and relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3508–3513. Wezel, A., et al., 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 503–515. Yildiz, H.Y., et al., 2017. Fish welfare in aquaponics systems and its relation to water quality with an emphasis on feed and feces—a review. Water 9 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w9010013. Ziesemer, J., 2007. Energy Use in Organic Food Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

CHAPTER 5

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system Linnea I. Laestadius, Julia A. Wolfson

Introduction The modern, industrialized food system produces an astoundingly large variety of food products, sourced from around the globe, and makes a huge amount of resource-intensive and energy-dense (high in calories, fat, and sugar, but low in nutrients) food available for easy, fast consumption, at affordable prices, almost anytime, anywhere. In the not so distant past, most people either grew, produced, and cooked their own food, or knew the people who produced and sold their food. Today, people live in a fast-paced world in which we have become far removed from the origins and production of the food we eat. Over the past century, and particularly in the last 50 years, the pace of change in the food system has accelerated. While some of these changes have been beneficial, they have also created a host of increasingly pressing harms. Consumer demand is now not only a contributor to chronic disease, but also a driving force behind environmental degradation that threatens the security of the food system itself and the public’s health more broadly (Sabat
e et al., 2016). Since the 1960s, restaurants and eating away from home became more common in the United States and other developed countries. Fast food restaurants have expanded rapidly, and now dominate the landscape in many areas making cheap food that is high in calories, fat, salt, and sugar easily available, often 24 h a day, often without even needing to get out of one’s car. Global trade agreements have facilitated the creation of a global food system. Technology has rapidly advanced agricultural production methods, food processing, and transportation. A wide variety of ready-to-eat or readyto-heat food products, many of which are heavily processed and highly energy dense, dominate the shelves of supermarkets. As Western countries have become even more urbanized and industrialized, the social and economic structures shifted and women entered the workforce, changing social

Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00005-9

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

75

76

Environmental nutrition

norms and the time available for food provisioning and preparation. As a result, the demand for (and supply of ) highly processed, convenient, fast, plentiful, affordable, filling, tasty food is now the defining characteristic of the current food system in most Western countries. Thankfully, current demands on the food system are neither immutable nor inevitable, but are instead shaped by a complex set of social, economic, and political drivers. In this chapter, we describe several of the most critical unsustainable demands consumers place on the food system. Most of our discussion is concentrated on the United States and other high-income Western countries, but we also touch on these trends as they relate to the global food system. We focus on consumer demand for animal-derived products, convenience foods, nonregional foods, and large serving sizes/food waste. We describe trends in these demands, as well as how and why they are unsustainable. We focus on sustainability issues related to use of natural resources, environmental sustainability, and population health. We then move on to consider the factors that are currently driving unsustainable food choices and a possible path forward to foster a more sustainable food system.

What are the unsustainable demands placed on the food system? The typical “Western diet,” characterized by excess consumption of red meat and processed foods high in carbohydrates, salt, and sugar as well as too little consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, is the prevailing dietary pattern in the United States and other high-income, industrialized countries. In addition, the Western diet is becoming increasingly common in lower- and middle-income countries as they invest in economic development and become more urbanized. Consumer demand for animalderived foods—particularly red meat—convenience foods, out of season and nonregional foods, and ever larger servings of food is already high, and is now growing across the globe. Increasing consumer preferences for these products place unsustainable demands on the food system in terms of the resources required, the costs to the environment, and the high toll on population health. Table 1 presents key harms and concerns posed by these demands.

Table 1 Summary of harms associated with unsustainable demands on the food system. Threats to sustainability Population health

Social justice/equity/disparities

Animal-derived foods

• Large source of greenhouse gas

• Meat consumption, particu-

• Climate change will dispropor-

emissions, substantial contributor to climate change • Contributes to excess water use, water pollution, and reductions in biodiversity • Large surfaces of land used for production of animal feed

larly processed meat, is associated with higher rates of coronary heart disease, diabetes, and colorectal cancer • Industrial production practices contribute to spread of antibiotic resistant pathogens and emergence of zoonotic disease • Farm and processing plant workers at risk of injury, inflection, and exposure to toxic gases

Convenience foods/fast food

• Throughout

• Ultraprocessed foods and fast

tionately impact world’s poorest populations • Large-scale animal production facilities more likely to be located in or near low-SES communities, creating disparities in risk of environmental exposure and related health problems • Disparities in types of meats consumed based on income and education contribute to health disparities • Energy-dense, processed foods such as convenience foods are frequently more affordable and readily available than fresh ingredients, which may contribute to health disparities

their lifecycle, ready-made meals and their packaging contribute on average more than homemade meals to climate change, toxic waste, eutrophication, smog, and ozone layer depletion

77

food are energy dense (high in calories, fat, sugar, and salt) • Fast food is associated with higher risk of obesity and other diseases • Convenience foods are more processed, and faster and easier to eat, which contributes to snacking and excess consumption of calories

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

Natural resources/environment

Continued

78

Table 1 Summary of harms associated with unsustainable demands on the food system.—cont’d Threats to sustainability

Out of season/ nonregional foods

Population health

• Food waste and overconsump-

• Larger portion sizes lead to

tion correspond to unnecessary use of land/fishing area, herbicides, fertilizers, and energy, as well as to soil erosion and plastic production • Wasted food in landfills contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

greater caloric intake, which is a contributing factor for obesity and diet-related diseases • Large portion sizes shift social norms about what a “proper” size meal is, further reinforcing overconsumption • Wasted food could help address food insecurity and hunger • Produce transported over long distances or stored for long periods of time have less vitamin and nutrient content than fresher produce

• Produce grown off-season via heated, protected cropping contributes to greenhouse gas emissions • Long-distance transportation of nonregional foods contributes to greenhouse gas emissions

Social justice/equity/disparities

• Better allocation of food that is currently wasted could reduce inequities in food availability. • Avoiding production of otherwise wasted food could relieve pressure on global production systems, potentially improving food availability in higher-need parts of the world • Local agriculture can improve food equity, social integration, and natural human capital • Supporting local food systems has economic benefits for the community as a whole

Environmental nutrition

Larger servings/ food waste

Natural resources/environment

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

79

Demand for animal-derived foods Consumption of animal-derived foods, including red meat, processed meat, poultry, and dairy, has increased substantially over the past several decades. In the United States, total meat consumption has doubled since the early 1900s (Daniel et al., 2011), driven largely by increases in poultry consumption, which increased from 25 g per day in 1970 to 55 g per day in 2007. Since the 1970s, red meat consumption has somewhat declined in the United States, from an average of 105 g per day in 1970 to 85 g per day in 2007 (Daniel et al., 2011). However, red meat still accounts for approximately 60% of the 100–150 g of meat per day American adults consume (Daniel et al., 2011). In the United States, consumption of dairy products such as cheese, yogurt, and butter has increased since the 1970s, whereas milk consumption has decreased, particularly for whole milk (USDA Economic Research Service, 2017a). In many countries, the dairy industry is expanding to meet increasing demand for milk and other dairy products (Douphrate et al., 2013). Worldwide, meat and dairy consumption have almost doubled since the 1960s (Sans and Combris, 2015). This shift is driven by economic development, urbanization, and a growing upper and middle class in countries such as China and Brazil. With more resources, individuals can more easily afford meat, and often adopt a more westernized diet, which is high in meat and dairy. Due to projected population and income growth, as well as increasing urbanization, demand for animal-derived foods is expected to increase globally over the next several decades. In lower- and middle-income countries, per-capita annual consumption of meat products was 14 kg in 1980, 28 kg in 2002, and is expected to be 38 kg in 2030 and 44 kg in 2050. In higherincome countries, annual per-capita meat consumption has been substantially higher: 73 kg in 1980 and 78 kg in 2002. Though meat consumption in higher income countries has increased at a slower rate than in lowerincome countries, per-capita meat consumption is still expected to reach 94 kg per year by 2050. Similarly, per-capita annual consumption of milk is projected to reach 78 kg by 2050 (it was 34 kg in 1980) in lower- and middle-income countries and 216 kg by 2050 in higher-income countries (it was 195 kg in 1980) (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Thornton, 2010). As a result of increased demand for meat products, livestock production is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors in lower- and middleincome countries (Thornton, 2010). Meeting this demand will have serious environmental, health, and social justice consequences. Already, livestock production systems account for 30% of the Earth’s ice-free, land surface area

80

Environmental nutrition

(Steinfeld et al., 2006). Modern livestock operations, known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), can house upwards of 100,000 animals at any given time, and require enormous resource inputs of land, water, grain (and, therefore, oil, for fertilizer) and antibiotics (Cordain et al., 2005; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Industrial food animal production (IFAP) is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore, global warming (Caro et al., 2014; Oenema et al., 2005; Steinfeld et al., 2006). To meet projected consumer demand for meat, the global population of cattle would have to increase from 1.5 billion to 2.6 billion by 2050, which would have serious implications for land and water use, pollution, and global warming (Thornton, 2010). Meat from ruminant animals, such as cattle, is particularly resource intensive. As a result, diets that reduce or eliminate red meat in favor of plant-based protein sources have been found to reduce both emissions and land use (Hallstr€ om et al., 2015; Harwatt et al., 2017). In addition to the environmental harms associated with animal-derived products, meat (and particularly red and processed meat) is associated with risks to human health as well. A wide body of literature has consistently demonstrated that consumption of red meat and processed meats is associated with higher mortality risk, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and colon cancer (Battaglia Richi et al., 2015; Bellavia et al., 2016; Bovalino et al., 2016; McAfee et al., 2010; Micha et al., 2010; Sandhu et al., 2001). As meat consumption increases in developing countries, cardiovascular disease and other health risks associated with meat consumption can be expected to rise as well. Additional health risks associated with increased demand for animal-derived products include antibiotic resistance resulting from the large doses of prophylactic antibiotics used in IFAP, particularly, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections (Casey et al., 2013, 2015; Mirabelli et al., 2006).

Demand for convenience foods Arguably one of the most fundamental shifts to the food system over the past century has been the emergence and dominance of convenience foods in the marketplace. The food industry developed and marketed convenience foods in response to consumer demand (a demand that industry played a role in creating) for foods that were readily available, affordably priced, easy to open, quick to prepare, and fast and easy to eat (Moss, 2013; Okrent and Kumcu, 2016; Shapiro, 2004). The development and marketing of convenience products helped create a culture in which time to prepare food is scarce (or perceived to be scarce) and use of convenience products that take

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

81

less time, energy, and cooking skill are ubiquitous. This trend, combined with the growth of the restaurant industry, and the fast food sector in particular, have made convenience a primary value and key determinant of food choices among Americans (Glanz et al., 1998). For decades, supermarket store shelves and freezer sections have been dominated by processed, ready-to-eat, or ready-to-heat products that only require opening a package and possibly using a microwave to prepare and consume. More than 90% of Americans purchase convenience foods (Harris and Shiptsova, 2007), and spending on convenience products has increased from 3.2% of all food expenditures in 1998 to almost 20% of all food expenditures in 2006 (Guthrie et al., 2012). In 2010, American households spent 26% of their household food expenditures on ready-to-eat or ready-to-cook meals and snacks (Okrent and Kumcu, 2016). By comparison, 23% of household food expenditures were spent on basic or complex ingredients, and 50% was spent on restaurant food (23% on sit-down restaurants, 27% on fast food restaurants) (Okrent and Kumcu, 2016). Convenience food products, and particularly highly processed convenience foods, comprise a significant proportion of daily energy intake. In the United States, between 2000 and 2012, more than 75% of daily energy intake came from moderately or highly processed foods with no notable shifts in consumption over time (Poti et al., 2015). In general, more highly processed items tend to be more energy dense, higher in calories, fat, salt, and sugar. Similar to convenience products lining grocery stores, fast food restaurants also respond to consumer demand for quick, convenient, satisfying food. In the United States, fast food restaurants have increased from approximately 30,000 locations in 1970 to more than 233,000 in 2004 (Rosenheck, 2008). In 2014, there were 990,000 restaurant locations in the United States with more than $600 billion in sales (by comparison, restaurant sales in 1970 were $43 billion, in 2014 dollars) (National Restaurant Association, 2014; Okrent and Kumcu, 2016). The restaurant industry in general, and fast food sector in particular, has undergone enormous growth over the past several decades. In 1955, 25% of every food dollar spent went to restaurants. Now, half of every dollar spent on food goes to restaurants, with 27% being spent at fast food restaurants (National Restaurant Association, 2014). The increasing role of packaged, processed convenience foods and of fast food has serious implications for population health, health disparities, and environmental sustainability. These impacts, of course, will only grow as convenience products and fast food restaurants expand their global reach.

82

Environmental nutrition

Both convenience foods and fast food are more energy dense than foods prepared with fresh or basic ingredients. They are, therefore, associated with higher energy intake, and higher rates of obesity and other diet-related diseases (Guthrie et al., 2012; Moubarac et al., 2013; Rosenheck, 2008; Bowman et al., 2004; Beydoun et al., 2009; Powell and Nguyen, 2013; Powell et al., 2012). In addition, convenience foods products’ long supply chains, processing practices, frozen storage needs may have negative impacts on the environment compared to homemade meals. Convenience foods use more water, energy, and produce more packaging and waste than lessprocessed foods and have greater inputs due to processing, manufacturing, and distribution practices (Daniels et al., 2015; Schmidt Rivera et al., 2014; Stranieri et al., 2017).

Demand for larger serving sizes and consumer food waste Beyond the high-energy density of fast food, an additional explanation for fast food’s association with the obesity epidemic is that portion sizes at fast food restaurants have increased substantially since the 1950s. In fact, the average restaurant meal today is more than four times larger than fast food meals from the 1950s (DCH, 2016). In addition, there are more sizes available, and often the largest portion sizes of food and drink items are the most economical (e.g., the customer gets more food/drink for a marginal increase in price) (Young and Nestle, 2002; DCH, 2016). For both children and adults, portion sizes of the most commonly consumed foods have increased between the 1970s and today (Nielsen and Popkin, 2003; Piernas and Popkin, 2011a, b; Young and Nestle, 2002). Larger portion sizes are associated with greater consumption, resulting in increased risk of obesity and other diet-related diseases (McConahy et al., 2004; Piernas and Popkin, 2011b; Pourshahidi et al., 2014). In a related issue, approximately 40% of all US food is wasted before it even reaches consumers (Buzby et al., 2014). Once food does reach consumers, large packaging and serving sizes contribute to even more waste (Neff et al., 2015b; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016). Food waste has always been a problem, though the volume of wasted food appears to be increasing (Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016). At the retail and consumer level, wasted food accounted for more than 1200 kcal per capita, per day in 2012 (Spiker et al., 2017). This wasted food is enough to provide 2000 cal per day to 84% of the US adult population, a staggering loss of edible resources in the face of

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

83

ongoing hunger and food insecurity (Spiker et al., 2017). Worldwide, approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption is wasted (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013). Food waste, of course, has implications for environmental sustainability as discarding so much food and sending it to landfills diverts needed water, land, and other resources from other uses. Wasted food is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emission in the world, ranking below only China and the United States (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013).

Demand for out-of-season/nonregional foods In a globally connected world, international trade of food products, particularly fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, contributes to a food culture in which seasonality and local production capacity has less influence on consumption patterns than in the past. Not long ago, certain types of produce would only be available in spring or summer; however, consumers now expect such products to be available year-round. As a result, the United States has shifted from being a net exporter of produce in the early 1970s, to being a net importer of produce. In 2015, US fruit and vegetable exports totaled $6.3 billion, and imports totaled $17.6 billion ( Johnson, 2016). Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have facilitated increases in imports from Canada and Mexico, though the United States also imports substantial quantities of food from South America, the European Union, and China (USDA Economic Research Service, 2017b). Though local food is valued and sales from farmer’s markets and direct farm to consumer sales have increased over the past decade (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2014), fully local, seasonal eating patterns are no longer the norm in the United States and other developed countries (Guptill and Wilkins, 2002). The environmental and health implications of a globally connected food system in which the primacy of the local or regional food production capacity is diminished are somewhat unclear. Early studies on this issue focused on “food miles travelled” or on the environmental costs of transporting perishable food products long distances (Hospido et al., 2009; Weber and Matthews, 2008). The results of this body of work suggest that shifting dietary patterns matters more for sustainability than food origin and that, depending on the climate and environment in which products are grown, local produce is not always more sustainable (Hospido et al.,

84

Environmental nutrition

2009). That said, a global food system that increasingly relies on food products sourced from long distances will necessarily lead to an absolute growth in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and will have other (potentially adverse) societal and land use impacts in areas of the world where products are being sourced (Garnett, 2011). Local food also has other benefits in terms of health, or at least nutrition, and social and economic outcomes. Produce starts losing valuable vitamins and nutrients as soon as it is picked, so, unless produce is frozen, its nutritional value diminishes as it travels long distances compared to local produce that might be sold (and consumed) shortly after it is harvested (Kaput et al., 2015). Also, supporting local farmers and food businesses has economic benefits for local economies as more money stays within the community and supports other local businesses.

What drives unsustainable demands on the food system? As outlined earlier, the food system currently faces several unsustainable societal demands. While the scope of these demands may be daunting, dietary change is not an impossible goal if we can understand why people make unsustainable food choices. The public health literature, although often focused more on clinical and public health rather than environmental nutrition, offers a valuable starting point. In public health, the broad spectrum of “biological, socioeconomic, psychosocial, behavioral, or social” factors that influence personal and community health are known as determinants of health (CDC, 2014). By examining the determinants of our food choices, we can understand what drives unsustainable consumption. The most immediate determinants of individual food choice have long been recognized to include taste, cost, and convenience (Glanz et al., 1998), but broader social, economic, and political factors (known as upstream determinants) also play a critical role. Fig. 1, adapted from Dowler (2008) and Lake et al. (2012), describes the complex relationship between the different determinants of food choice. It also captures the feedback loop between food choices (and their environmental impacts) and the foods that future generations will ultimately have available to consume. While many determinants interact with each other, the model presents a simplified framework to allow readers the opportunity to visually consider the key interconnected factors at play. Each primary determinant of unsustainable diets is examined below, with a focus on highlighting the drivers of the demands outlined earlier in this chapter.

Cultural and social norms

International, national, and local policies

• Class and gender associations with foods • Family and community culinary traditions • Portion size expectations

• Agriculture, trade, health, retailing, urban planning, housing, transportation, employment, education, welfare • Dominant political ideology

Food preparation practices

Food preferences

• Convenience culture • Food preparation skills • Time constraints

• Taste/price/convenience • Identity • Awareness and concern for environment/health

Information • Food labeling • Marketing • Education about nutrition and sustainability • News media

Food traits • • • •

Technology Innovation Processed foods Food packaging

Availability • • • •

Agricultural production Imports Foods available in stores Retail and transportation landscape

Foods households choose to purchase from accessible and available options

Foods consumed or wasted

Population health effects and disparities

Environmental effects

Food prices Relative price of sustainable foods Household income and resources Government assistance

85

Fig. 1 Drivers of unsustainable societal demands on the food system.

• • • •

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

Affordability

86

Environmental nutrition

Policies and politics Government policy, and a political environment that often favors economic growth at the expense of other objectives, plays a fundamental role in shaping unsustainable food choices. In part, this is the result of a continued lack of policy to promote sustainability in the food system. Given a political system that favors unregulated markets and powerful food and agriculture lobbies, most policy interventions to promote changes in consumption have taken the form of public education or voluntary producer standards rather than more powerful strategies like taxation (Swinburn et al., 2011; Reisch et al., 2013). In the United States, even modest government efforts to encourage change have failed due to pressure from the private sector. For example, the 2015 US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) recommended reducing red and processed meat consumption and noted that a diet lower in animal products would be both more “health promoting” and sustainable than current US diets (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2015). After pushback from the meat industry and Congress (Neff et al., 2015a), the completed 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans did not address red meat reduction or environmental sustainability. More broadly, policy shapes the context within which every other determinant in Fig. 1 operates. For example, agricultural policies that subsidize the production of commodity crops used for animal feed and that allow CAFOs to avoid internalizing the costs of their externalities (such as water and air pollution) contribute to the relative affordability of meat and other animal products in the United States (Osterberg and Wallinga, 2004; Fitzgerald, 2015). Trade policies help determine the foods available to consumers. For example, NAFTA, increased consumer access to “new varieties of food products and off-season supplies of fresh produce” (Zahniser et al., 2015, p. 1). Trade liberalization has also likely contributed to the global nutrition transition by making processed and convenience foods more readily available in lower- and middle-income nations (Blouin et al., 2009). This expansion of profitable, but unsustainable and unhealthy, markets is in many ways a natural outcome of a political system designed to foster “consumption-based growth” (Swinburn et al., 2011). Social and economic policies also play significant roles in shaping determinants such as food access, time available for food preparation, and exposure to information and marketing related to food. In short, politics and policy (or, in some instances, a lack of policy) play a critical, but often underappreciated role in shaping unsustainable food choices.

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

87

Availability Perhaps the most obvious determinant of any food choice is the food that is available for consumers to purchase. In 2015, the average US supermarket sold almost 40,000 items (Food Marketing Institute, 2017). For many of the reasons mentioned, this includes large volumes of out-of-season, imported, and processed convenience foods. As a result, many consumers have more opportunities than ever to easily and affordably purchase foods with ecological footprints larger than their local, seasonal, and unprocessed alternatives (Reisch et al., 2013). In some instances, shortages of domestic crops also contribute to unsustainable purchasing behaviors. Increased demand for organic foods, for example, has outstripped US supply, resulting in a growing volume of imports (Organic Trade Association, 2015). However, not all consumers experience a food environment that allows for significant choice between sustainable and unsustainable options. Neighborhoods with more minority and low-income residents have a disproportionately high number of fast food restaurants and convenience/corner stores (Hilmers et al., 2012). Corner stores in marginalized urban communities often have limited availability of fresh, high-quality produce (seasonal or otherwise), and instead sell large volumes of highly processed snack foods (Laska et al., 2010; Lucan et al., 2010). The issue then is not simply the overall availability of sustainable food, but also its distribution. Any effort to increase consumption of more sustainable foods will ultimately have to address the socioeconomic factors that create food swamps, i.e., areas where access to unhealthy, unsustainable foods greatly exceeds access to healthy, sustainable foods. The design of available foods also drives unsustainable behaviors. Processed convenience foods have increasingly been engineered to be hyperpalatable and to “surpass the rewarding properties of traditional foods (e.g., vegetables, fruits, nuts)” (Gearhardt et al., 2011b, p. 1208). By playing on human preferences for sugar, fat, and salt, some have argued that hyperpalatable processed foods take on addictive properties (Gearhardt et al., 2011a, b). The overconsumption of these foods is partially the result of intentional design choices by corporations. Technological innovations in food preparation and packaging have also influenced dietary patterns and consumer expectations. The advent of the microwave allowed for the expansion of convenience foods designed for home preparation (Brunner et al., 2010). Advancements in packaging have had important benefits for convenience, food safety, and shelf-life, but many forms of packaging rely on unsustainable

88

Environmental nutrition

materials, are too large to consume in one meal, or are difficult to fully empty (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007; Williams et al., 2012; Wikstr€ om et al., 2014). Consumers face a similar tradeoff with frozen foods, as they offer convenient access to out-of-season produce and help to reduce food waste, but require fairly large energy inputs, particularly for long supply chains (Pelletier et al., 2011).

Affordability The cost/affordability and accessibility of food plays an important role in unsustainable food choices (Glanz et al., 1998). Lower-income households are more price sensitive and report that healthful food is often unaffordable and thus not accessible (Dammann and Smith, 2009; Baruth et al., 2014). Out of necessity, lower-income households may rely more on costeffective, but calorie-dense processed foods that also have higher ecological footprints (Dammann and Smith, 2009, Baruth et al., 2014). Accordingly, a person’s ability to access sustainable food choices is in large part determined by their socioeconomic status. Recent increases in the relative price of basic food ingredients may be pushing price-sensitive consumers even further toward convenience foods (Okrent and Kumcu, 2016). While high food prices can be a barrier to the purchase of sustainable foods, low prices for unsustainable foods are also problematic. The relatively low price of meat in the United States, tied to both policy and technological drivers, has contributed to increased US meat consumption since World War II (Daniel et al., 2011; Fitzgerald, 2015). This phenomenon, however, is no longer limited to Western nations (Kearney, 2010). In the West, processed convenience foods are also more affordable than many fresh fruits and vegetables, in part because of government subsidies for commodity crops and also because they are cheaper to transport and store (Drewnowski et al., 2004; Contento, 2010). Low prices for foods may also contribute to food waste. Store promotions for larger or multi-item purchases may lead to overpurchasing, and consumers report that buying in bulk or buying multiple items on sale increases their food waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016; Qi and Roe, 2016). Serving sizes in restaurants have similarly increased over time, further contributing to overconsumption and food waste, as well as norms about appropriate serving sizes (Young and Nestle, 2002). Large sizes and portions are driven partially by consumer preferences and partially by companies seeking to outcompete each other (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007; Wansink and van Ittersum, 2007).

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

89

Information For those consumers with sustainable foods both available and accessible, what continues to drive their demand for unsustainable options? Again, the determinants are complex and difficult to disentangle, but evidence suggests that the provision of information in the form of food marketing contributes to demand for unsustainable and unhealthy foods. There is significantly more advertising for processed and convenience foods than for more healthful and sustainable options. Of the top 200 food brands advertised in 2012, none were unprocessed ingredients (Okrent and Kumcu, 2016). In the same year, McDonald’s advertising budget was $972 million, which was almost 3 times larger than all vegetable, fruit, milk, and water advertisers combined (Harris et al., 2013). Advertising for animal products is also facilitated by federally created commodity checkoff programs that raise millions in revenue from producers to help fund shared efforts like generic advertising, including efforts to “correct misleading publicity” about the environment and animal welfare (Cattlemen’s Beef Board, 2016, 2017). The effects of advertising appear to be particularly strong among children, who may lack the ability to recognize and critically process commercial messages (Boyland et al., 2016). Some corporations have made voluntary commitments to reduce advertising of unhealthy foods to children under 12, but television and online advertising targeting even the youngest children continues to be common (Harris et al., 2013). Children, aged 6–11, saw on average over three television ads for fast food every day in 2012, with overall exposure to food advertising even higher (Harris et al., 2013; Fleming-Milici and Harris, 2016). Again, inequities are present, with lower-income and minority children exposed to significantly more advertising than higher-income and white children (Powell et al., 2014; Fleming-Milici and Harris, 2016). Despite this, the United States has no policies restricting food advertising to children. There is less research on the effects of advertising on adults and findings to date have been somewhat mixed (Mills et al., 2013; Zimmerman and Shimoga, 2014). However, an USDA analysis of demand for convenience foods found advertising to be a “highly effective tool” for promoting fast food (Okrent and Kumcu, 2016) and each promotional dollar spend through the beef checkoff program is estimated to generate $5.60 in industry benefits (Ward, 2006). Information also influences food waste behaviors. Awareness of food waste as a sustainability issue remains far from universal and many consumers report believing that food should be thrown away once it has passed the date

90

Environmental nutrition

written on its package (Neff et al., 2015b; Qi and Roe, 2016). This incorrect conflation of “sell by,” “best before,” and other such labels with the actual last day that food can safely be eaten leads to unnecessary waste (Wikstr€ om et al., 2014). A lack of awareness and understanding about sustainable food choices more generally appears to be an ongoing challenge. Consumers continue to show limited understanding of the connections between food choices and their environmental impacts, particularly with regard to animal products (Shi et al., 2018; Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017). Many in the West also continue to believe that regular meat consumption is necessary for human health (Piazza et al., 2015). While awareness and appreciation of the environmental footprint of food choices is by no means a guarantee of change due to a phenomenon often known as the “attitude-behavior gap” (Kollmus and Agyeman, 2002; Ockwell et al., 2009), this continued lack of understanding may contribute to unsustainable food choices.

Cultural and social norms In addition to outside information about food, consumers also consider often deeply ingrained cultural and social norms when making food choices (Nestle et al., 1998). Family, community, and cultural food traditions beginning during childhood shape food choices throughout the life course. The foods people eat throughout their lives at family gatherings and celebrations, as part of religious ceremonies or holidays, and on a daily basis shape food memories and emotional associations that influence taste preferences, attitudes about, and connections to certain foods (Devine, 2005). Food attitudes and preferences are often incorporated into individuals’ identities. For example, preferences about use of convenience foods versus home cooking are shaped by early life experiences and perceptions that a person is, or is not, “a person who cooks” (Wolfson et al., 2016). Broader cultural and social norms also shape perceptions about what is or is not appropriate or healthy to eat. For example, although most cultures share the ideology that certain nonhuman animals are an appropriate source of food, which is known as “carnism,” the specific animals thought of as food varies by culture ( Joy, 2011). Meat consumption has long held a special place in diets, serving as a means of expressing social status and gender norms (Gossard and York, 2003; Adams, 2010; Rothgerber, 2013). Meat is also a key element of the traditional “tripartite” meal structure familiar to most people following a primarily Western diet, consisting of meat or fish, a staple, and a vegetable (Sch€ osler et al., 2012). Cultural and social norms can also

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

91

serve as a barrier to lasting dietary change, with many former vegetarians and vegans indicating that they disliked that plant-based diets made them “stick out from the crowd” (Asher et al., 2014).

Food preparation practices The consumption of sustainable and healthy foods in the home requires both time and some degree of comfort with food preparation. As more women have entered the workforce due to changing economic and cultural circumstances, the amount of time that families dedicate to food preparation has decreased substantially (Smith et al., 2013). The USDA estimates that women with fulltime jobs spend more than 20 min less on food preparation each day compared to nonworking women (Mancino and Newman, 2007). The same trend holds for men, although women spend over twice as much time on food preparation (Mancino and Newman, 2007; Smith et al., 2013). While spending less time on food preparation does not appear to be clearly correlated with eating more convenience foods (arguably because almost everyone consumes convenience foods now) (Brunner et al., 2010), people report consuming convenience foods because they are quicker and less labor intensive than cooking from scratch (Devine et al., 2006; Rydell et al., 2008). Additionally, a lack of cooking skills is correlated with increased consumption of highly and moderately processed convenience foods (Brunner et al., 2010). Shifting consumer demand away from consumption of highly processed ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat convenience products in favor of fresh or scratch ingredients will require cooking skills that many do not possess. Similarly, limited familiarity and skills for the preparation of plant-based meals in particular may be a challenge for efforts to get consumers to replace meat products with unprocessed vegetable proteins (Sch€ osler et al., 2012). Policy again comes into play here, with Smith et al. (2013) suggesting that the decline in the number of schools requiring home economics contributed to the decline in cooking among young adults the 1990s and 2000s. As a result, some have called for implementing a modern home economics in public schools (Lichtenstein and Ludwig, 2010; Cunningham-Sabo and Simons, 2012).

Food preferences Finally, food choices are in large part shaped by preferences. Taste has long been recognized as a primary determinant of food choice and, as mentioned earlier, humans are to some extent inherently disposed to enjoy foods

92

Environmental nutrition

characterized by a high fat, salt, and sugar content (Glanz et al., 1998; Nestle et al., 1998). There is also evidence that people prefer convenience even when they might have time to prepare food (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999; Hanks et al., 2012). However, many preferences are socially constructed, with cultural norms and advertising determining which foods and food combinations are seen as acceptable and desirable. For example, the high volume of meat consumption in Western nations has clear roots not just in taste but culture. As mentioned, meat consumption is seen as normative and may serve as a marker of social status and masculinity (Gossard and York, 2003; Rothgerber, 2013; Piazza et al., 2015). By contrast, plantbased proteins have struggled to win widespread acceptance both because they are novel and because of the social implications of reducing meat consumption (Hoek et al., 2011; Nath, 2011). As a result, consumers unfamiliar with plant-based diets appear to favor meat alternatives that resemble meat as closely as possible (Hoek et al., 2011). However, there is some indication that consumer preferences for less processed alternatives, such as tofu, will increase with repeated exposure (Hoek et al., 2013). More challenging for sustainability is that regular exposure to out-of-season and nonregional produce has created expectations for the year-round availability of desired produce, which companies are happy to continue to offer, provided consumers are willing to pay prices sufficient to offset costs. Preferences also contribute to food waste and overconsumption. Partially due to supermarkets not stocking “abnormal” produce, many consumers expect quality fruits and vegetables to follow standardized parameters for shape, size, and color (Loebnitz et al., 2015). As a result, noncompliant produce may be rejected and contribute to food waste. Preferences for fresh food also contribute to waste, as people throw out leftovers and food that is still safe to eat but no longer considered fresh enough to be pleasing (Qi and Roe, 2016). Furthermore, normalization of large portion sizes has shifted norms around what a “proper” portion looks like, which further facilitates both overeating and waste (Wansink and van Ittersum, 2007). In a vicious cycle, the food industry offers larger and larger portions, the public comes to expect large portions, and industry responds with ever larger portions, and the public either consumes or wastes more and more food.

Conclusion Current societal demands are pushing the food system beyond environmental constraints and posing significant challenges for the public’s health.

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

93

As illustrated by the determinants of demand, food choice is far from a simple matter of inherent individual preferences. While consumers may be predisposed to enjoy certain flavors or favor convenience given the option, much of what drives individual choices is determined further upstream in the realms of policy, corporate decision making, and social and cultural norms. This presents an opportunity for change. To some extent, norms around food are already shifting and consumers are increasingly beginning to care about things that go beyond the traditional drivers of food choice. For example, a 2016 report from the consulting firm Deloitte found that a growing number of consumers now value factors such as health and wellness, safety, and social and environmental responsibility when making purchase decisions (Deloitte, 2016). Although this is an excellent first step, consumer actions alone are insufficient to address the scope of the challenges faced by the food system. Even when people know what lifestyle choices are sustainable, more upstream determinants like norms and practical impediments, such as limited time or economic resources, serve as barriers to action (Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Ockwell et al., 2009). Although every purchase in the grocery store, restaurant, or farmers market is an opportunity for an individual to take a stand, we also need broad policy changes in the private and public sectors to create a food environment in which sustainable, nutritious food choices are the easy, affordable, and preferable choice for all consumers no matter where they live or their economic circumstances. Ultimately, change will require people to act not just as consumers, but as citizens willing to advocate for change at all levels of society.

Acknowledgments The authors thank Tarlise Townsend and Stacey Pangratz for assistance with collecting and reviewing literature.

References Adams, C.J., 2010. The Sexual Politics of Meat, 20th Anniversary Edition. Continuum, New York. Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Normann, A., 2016. Consumer-related food waste: role of food marketing and retailers and potential for action. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 28 (3), 271–285. Asher, K., Green, C., Gutbrod, H., Jewell, M., Hale, G., Bastian, B., 2014. Study of Current and Former Vegetarians and Vegans. Faunalytics/Humane Research Council. Available from, https://faunalytics.org/feature-article/study-of-current-and-former-vegetariansand-vegans/. (Accessed 3 June 2017).

94

Environmental nutrition

Baruth, M., Sharpe, P.A., Parra-Medina, D., Wilcox, S., 2014. Perceived barriers to exercise and healthy eating among women from disadvantaged neighborhoods: results from a focus groups assessment. Women Health 54 (4), 336–353. Battaglia Richi, E., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., Keller, U., 2015. Health risks associated with meat consumption: a review of epidemiological studies. Int. J. Vitam. Nutr. Res. 85 (1–2), 70–78. Bellavia, A., Stilling, F., Wolk, A., 2016. High red meat intake and all-cause cardiovascular and cancer mortality: is the risk modified by fruit and vegetable intake? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104 (4), 1137–1143. Beydoun, M.A., Powell, L.M., Wang, Y., 2009. Reduced away-from-home food expenditure and better nutrition knowledge and belief can improve quality of dietary intake among US adults. Public Health Nutr. 12 (3), 369–381. Blouin, C., Chopra, M., van der Hoeven, R., 2009. Trade and social determinants of health. Lancet 373 (9662), 502–507. Bovalino, S., Charleson, G., Szoeke, C., 2016. The impact of red and processed meat consumption on cardiovascular disease risk in women. Nutrition 32 (3), 349–354. Bowman, S.A., Gortmaker, S.L., Ebbeling, C.B., Pereira, M.A., Ludwig, D.S., 2004. Effects of fast-food consumption on energy intake and diet quality among children in a National Household Survey. Pediatrics 113 (1), 112. Boyland, E.J., Nolan, S., Kelly, B., Tudur-Smith, C., Jones, A., Halford, J.C., Robinson, E., 2016. Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 103 (2), 519–533. Brunner, T.A., van der Horst, K., Siegrist, M., 2010. Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite 55 (3), 498–506. Buzby, J.C., Farah-Wells, H., Hyman, J., 2014. The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. SSRN Electronic Journal, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Caro, D., Davis, S.J., Bastianoni, S., Caldeira, K., 2014. Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Climatic Change 126 (1–2), 203–216. Casey, J.A., Curriero, F.C., Cosgrove, S.E., Nachman, K.E., Schwartz, B.S., 2013. Highdensity livestock operations, crop field application of manure, and risk of communityassociated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in Pennsylvania. JAMA Intern. Med. 173 (21), 1980–1990. Casey, J.A., Kim, B.F., Larsen, J., Price, L.B., Nachman, K.E., 2015. Industrial food animal production and community health. Curr. Environm. Health Rep. 2 (3), 259–271. Cattlemen’s Beef Board, 2016. Cattlemen’s Beef Board 2016 annual report. Available from, http://2016annualreport.beefboard.org/. (Accessed 13 May 2017). Cattlemen’s Beef Board, 2017. Understanding your beef checkoff program. Available from, https://www.beefboard.org/producer/CBBFinalUnderstandingBrochure.pdf. (Accessed 13 May 2017). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, 2014. NCHHSTP social determinants of health. Available from, https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/socialdeterminants/definitions.html. (Accessed 3 June 2017). Contento, I.R., 2010. Overview of determinants of food choice and dietary change: implications for nutrition education. In: Nutrition Education Linking Research, Theory, and Practice, second ed. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, pp. 26–42. Cordain, L., Eaton, S.B., Sebastian, A., Mann, N., Lindeberg, S., Watkins, B.A., O’keefe, J.H., Brand-Miller, J., 2005. Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 81 (2), 341–354. Cunningham-Sabo, L., Simons, A., 2012. Home economics: an old-fashioned answer to a modern-day dilemma? Nutr. Today 47 (3), 128–132.

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

95

Dammann, K.W., Smith, C., 2009. Factors affecting low-income women’s food choices and the perceived impact of dietary intake and socioeconomic status on their health and weight. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 41 (4), 242–253. Daniel, C.R., Cross, A.J., Koebnick, C., Sinha, R., 2011. Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 14 (4), 575–583. Daniels, S., Glorieux, I., Minnen, J., van Tienoven, T.P., Weenas, D., 2015. Convenience on the menu? A typological conceptualization of family food expenditures and foodrelated time patterns. Soc. Sci. Res. 51, 205–218. Deloitte, 2016. Capitalizing on the shifting consumer food value equation. Available from, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/consumerbusiness/us-fmi-gma-report.pdf. (Accessed 20 May 2017). Devine, C.M., 2005. A life course perspective: understanding food choices in time, social location, and history. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 37 (3), 121–128. Devine, C.M., Jastran, M., Jabs, J., Wethington, E., Farell, T.J., Bisogni, C.A., 2006. ‘A lot of sacrifices:’ work–family spillover and the food choice coping strategies of low-wage employed parents. Soc. Sci. Med. 63 (10), 2591–2603. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2015. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available from, https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/. (Accessed 13 May 2017). Division of Community Health (DCH), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2016. Making healthy living easier: the new (ab)normal. [Online]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/multimedia/ infographics/newabnormal.htm. (Accessed 15 May 2017). Douphrate, D.I., Hagevoort, G.R., Nonnenmann, M.W., Lunner Kolstrup, C., Reynolds, S.J., Jakob, M., Kinsel, M., 2013. The dairy industry: a brief description of production practices, trends, and farm characteristics around the world. J. Agromedicine 18 (3), 187–197. Dowler, E.A., 2008. Symposium on ’Intervention policies for deprived households’ policy initiatives to address low-income households’ nutritional needs in the UK. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 67 (3), 289–300. Drewnowski, A., Darmon, N., Briend, A., 2004. Replacing fats and sweets with vegetables and fruits—a question of cost. Am. J. Public Health 94 (9), 1555–1559. Fitzgerald, A.J., 2015. Animals as Food: (Re)connecting Production, Processing, Consumption, and Impacts. MSU Press, East Lansing. Fleming-Milici, F., Harris, J.L., 2016. Television food advertising viewed by preschoolers, children and adolescents: contributors to differences in exposure for black and white youth in the United States. Pediatr Obes. 13 (2), 103–110. Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources: Summary Report. FAO. Available from, http:// www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. (Accessed 29 May 2017). Food Marketing Institute, 2017. Supermarket facts. Available from, http://www.fmi.org/ research-resources/supermarket-facts. (Accessed 13 May 2017). Garnett, T., 2011. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36 (Supplement 1), S23–S32. Gearhardt, A.N., Davis, C., Kuschner, R., Brownell, K.D., 2011a. The addiction potential of hyperpalatable foods. Curr. Drug Abuse Rev. 4 (3), 140–145. Gearhardt, A.N., Grilo, C.M., Dileone, R.J., Brownell, K.D., Potenza, M.N., 2011b. Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications. Addiction 106 (7), 1208–1212. Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J., Snyder, D.A.N., 1998. Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 98 (10), 1118–1126.

96

Environmental nutrition

Gossard, M.H., York, R., 2003. Social structural influences on meat consumption. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 10 (1), 1–9. Guptill, A., Wilkins, J.L., 2002. Buying into the food system: trends in food retailing in the US and implications for local foods. Agric. Hum. Values 19 (1), 39–51. Guthrie, J., Lin, B., Okrent, A., Volpe, R., 2012. Americans’ Food Choices at Home and Away: How Do They Compare with Recommendations? US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Hallstr€ om, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., B€ orjesson, P., 2015. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 91 (15), 1–11. Hanks, A.S., Just, D.R., Smith, L.E., Wansink, B., 2012. Healthy convenience: nudging students toward healthier choices in the lunchroom. J. Public Health 34 (3), 370–376. Harris, J.L., Schwartz, M.B., Munsell, C.R., Dembek, C., Liu, S., Lodolce, M., Heard, A., Dleming-Milici, F., Kidd, B., 2013. Fast food facts. Available from, http://www. fastfoodmarketing.org/. (Accessed 20 May 2017). Harris, J.M., Shiptsova, R., 2007. Consumer demand for convenience foods: demographics and expenditures. J. Food Distrib. Res. 38 (3), 22. Hartmann, C., Siegrist, M., 2017. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 61, 11–25. Harwatt, H., Sabat
e, J., Eshel, G., Soret, S., Ripple, W., 2017. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Clim. Chang. 143, 261–270. Hilmers, A., Hilmers, D.C., Dave, J., 2012. Neighborhood disparities in access to healthy foods and their effects on environmental justice. Am. J. Public Health 102 (9), 1644–1654. Hoek, A.C., Luning, P.A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F.J., de Graaf, C., 2011. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person-and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 56 (3), 662–673. Hoek, A.C., Elzerman, J.E., Hageman, R., Kok, F.J., Luning, P.A., de Graaf, C., 2013. Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A repeated in-home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals. Food Qual. Prefer. 28 (1), 253–263. Hospido, A., Mila` i Canals, L., McLaren, S., Truninger, M., Edwards-Jones, G., Clift, R., 2009. The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: a case study of environmental and social aspects. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (5), 381–391. Johnson, R., 2016. The US Trade Situation for Fruit and Vegetable Products. Congressional Research Service. 7-5700. Joy, M., 2011. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. Conari Press, San Francisco, CA. Kaput, J., Kussmann, M., Mendoza, Y., le Coutre, R., Cooper, K., Roulin, A., 2015. Enabling nutrient security and sustainability through systems research. Genes Nutr. 10 (3), 12. Kearney, J., 2010. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 365 (1554), 2793–2807. Kollmus, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (3), 239–260. Lake, I.R., Hooper, L., Abdelhamid, A., Bentham, G., Boxall, A.B.A., Draper, A., Fairweather-Tait, S., Hulme, M., Hunter, P.R., Nichols, G., Waldron, K.W., 2012. Climate change and food security: health impacts in developed countries. Environ. Health Perspect. 120 (11), 1520–1526. Laska, M.N., Borradaile, K.E., Tester, J., Foster, G.D., Gittelsohn, J., 2010. Healthy food availability in small urban food stores: a comparison of four US cities. Public Health Nutr. 13 (7), 1031–1035. Lichtenstein, A.H., Ludwig, D.S., 2010. Bring back home economics education. JAMA 303 (18), 1857–1858.

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

97

Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., Grunert, K.G., 2015. Who buys oddly shaped food and why? Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. Psychol. Mark. 32 (4), 408–421. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Chang. 17 (3–4), 445–459. Lucan, S.C., Karpyn, A., Sherman, S., 2010. Storing empty calories and chronic disease risk: snack-food products, nutritive content, and manufacturers in Philadelphia corner stores. J. Urban Health 87 (3), 394–409. Mancino, L., Newman, C., 2007. Who Has Time to Cook? How Family Resources Influence Food Preparation. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service Report Number 40. Available from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/ publications/45797/11722_err40_1_.pdf?v¼41056. (Accessed 20 May 2017). Marsh, K., Bugusu, B., 2007. Food packaging-roles, materials, and environmental issues. J. Food Sci. 72 (3), R39–R55. McAfee, A.J., McSorley, E.M., Cuskelly, G.J., Moss, B.W., Wallace, J.M.W., Bonham, M.P., Fearon, A.M., 2010. Red meat consumption: an overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Sci. 84 (1), 1–13. McConahy, K.L., Smiciklas-Wright, H., Mitchell, D.C., Picciano, M.F., 2004. Portion size of common foods predicts energy intake among preschool-aged children. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 104 (6), 975–979. Micha, R., Wallace, S.K., Mozaffarian, D., 2010. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121 (21), 2271–2283. Mills, S.D.H., Tanner, L.M., Adams, J., 2013. Systematic literature review of the effects of food and drink advertising on food and drink-related behaviour, attitudes and beliefs in adult populations. Obes. Rev. 14 (4), 303–314. Mirabelli, M.C., Wing, S., Marshall, S.W., Wilcosky, T.C., 2006. Race, poverty, and potential exposure of middle-school students to air emissions from confined swine feeding operations. Environ. Health Perspect. 114 (4), 591–596. Moss, M., 2013. Salt, Sugar, Fat: How The Food Giants Hooked Us. Random House. Moubarac, J.C., Martins, A.P., Claro, R.M., Levy, R.B., Cannon, G., Monteiro, C.A., 2013. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health. Evidence from Canada. Public Health Nutr. 16 (12), 2240–2248. Nath, J., 2011. Gendered fare? A qualitative investigation of alternative food and masculinities. J. Sociol. 47 (3), 261–278. National Restaurant Association, 2014. National Restaurant Association. Restaurant Industry Pocket Facbook. [Online]. Available from, http://www.restaurant.org/Downloads/ PDFs/News-Research/research/Factbook2014_LetterSize.pdf. (Accessed 8 June 2016). Neff, R.A., Merrigan, K., Wallinga, D., 2015a. A food systems approach to healthy food and agriculture policy. Health Aff. 34 (11), 1908–1915. Neff, R.A., Spiker, M.L., Truant, P.L., 2015b. Wasted food: U.S. Consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. PLoS One 10(6) e0127881. Nestle, M., Wing, R., Birch, L., Disogra, L., Drewnowski, A., Middleton, S., SigmanGrant, M., Sobal, J., Winston, M., Economos, C., 1998. Behavioral and social influences on food choice. Nutr. Rev. 56 (5), S50–S74. Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Perry, C., Casey, M.A., 1999. Factors influencing food choices of adolescents: findings from focus-group discussions with adolescents. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 99 (8), 929–937. Nielsen, S., Popkin, B.M., 2003. Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977–1998. JAMA 289 (4), 450–453.

98

Environmental nutrition

Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., 2009. Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Sci. Commun. 30 (3), 305–327. Oenema, O., Wrage, N., Velthof, G.L., van Groenigen, J.W., Dolfing, J., Kuikman, P.J., 2005. Trends in global nitrous oxide emissions from animal production systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 72 (1), 51–65. Okrent, A.M., Kumcu, A., 2016. U.S. Households’ Demand for Convenience Foods. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic reserach Service Report Number 211. Available from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/80654/err-211. pdf?v¼42668. (Accessed 20 May 2017). Organic Trade Association, 2015. Benchmark study yields key insights into global organic food trade. Available from, https://ota.com/news/press-releases/18062. (Accessed 13 May 2017). Osterberg, D., Wallinga, D., 2004. Addressing externalities from swine production to reduce public health and environmental impacts. Am. J. Public Health 94 (10), 1703–1708. Pelletier, N., Audsley, E., Brodt, S., Garnett, T., Henriksson, P., Kendall, A., Kramer, K.J., Murphy, D., Nemecek, T., Troell, M., 2011. Energy intensity of agriculture and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36 (1), 223–246. Piazza, J., Ruby, M.B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H.M., Seigerman, M., 2015. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite 91, 114–128. Piernas, C., Popkin, B.M., 2011a. Food portion patterns and trends among U.S. children and the relationship to total eating occasion size, 1977–2006. J. Nutr. 141 (6), 1159–1164. Piernas, C., Popkin, B.M., 2011b. Increased portion sizes from energy-dense foods affect total energy intake at eating occasions in US children and adolescents: Patterns and trends by age group and sociodemographic characteristics, 1977–2006. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94 (5), 1324–1332. Poti, J.M., Mendez, M.A., Ng, S. W. & Popkin, B. M., 2015. Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 101 (6), 1251–1262. Pourshahidi, L.K., Kerr, M.A., McCaffrey, T.A., Livingstone, M.B.E., 2014. Influencing and modifying children’s energy intake: the role of portion size and energy density. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 73 (3), 397–406. Powell, L.M., Nguyen, B.T., Han, E., 2012. Energy intake from restaurants: demographics and socioeconomics, 2003–2008. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43 (5), 498–504. Powell, L.M., Nguyen, B.T., 2013. Fast-food and full-service restaurant consumption among children and adolescents: effect on energy, beverage, and nutrient intake. JAMA Pediatr. 167 (1), 14–20. Powell, L.M., Wada, R., Kumanyika, S.K., 2014. Racial/ethnic and income disparities in child and adolescent exposure to food and beverage television ads across the U.S. media markets. Health Place 29, 124–131. Qi, D., Roe, B.E., 2016. Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among U.S. consumers. PLoS One 11(7) e0159250. Reisch, L., Eberle, U., Lorek, S., 2013. Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 9 (2), 7–25. Rosenheck, R., 2008. Fast food consumption and increased caloric intake: a systematic review of a trajectory towards weight gain and obesity risk. Obes. Rev. 9 (6), 535–547. Rothgerber, H., 2013. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol. Men Masculinity 14 (4), 363–375. Rydell, S.A., Harnack, L.J., Oakes, J.M., Story, M., Jeffery, R.W., French, S.A., 2008. Why eat at fast-food restaurants: reported reasons among frequent consumers. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 108 (12), 2066–2070.

Unsustainable societal demands on the food system

99

Sabat
e, J., Harwatt, H., Soret, S., 2016. Environmental nutrition: a new frontier for public health. Am. J. Public Health 106, 815–821. Sandhu, M.S., White, I.R., McPherson, K., 2001. Systematic review of the prospective cohort studies on meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 10 (5), 439. Sans, P., Combris, P., 2015. World meat consumption patterns: an overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Sci. 109, 106–111. Schmidt Rivera, X.C., Espinoza Orias, N., Azapagic, A., 2014. Life cycle environmental impacts of convenience food: comparison of ready and home-made meals. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 294–309. Sch€ osler, H., de Boer, J., Boersema, J.J., 2012. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 58 (1), 39–47. Shapiro, L., 2004. Something From the Oven: Reinventing Dinner in 1950s America. Viking, New York. Shi, J., Visschers, V.H.M., Bumann, N., Siegrist, M., 2018. Consumers’ climate-impact estimations of different food products. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1646–1653. Smith, L.P., Ng, S.W., Popkin, B.M., 2013. Trends in US home food preparation and consumption: analysis of national nutrition surveys and time use studies from 1965–1966 to 2007–2008. Nutr. J. 12, 45. Spiker, M.L., Hiza, H.A.B., Siddiqi, S.M., Neff, R.A., 2017. Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 117 (7), 1031–1040. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C., 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow. [online]. Available from, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM. (Accessed 29 May 2017). Stranieri, S., Ricci, E.C., Banterle, A., 2017. Convenience food with environmentallysustainable attributes: a consumer perspective. Appetite 116, 11–20. Swinburn, B.A., Sacks, G., Hall, K.D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D.T., Moodie, M.L., Gortmaker, S.L., 2011. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet 378 (9793), 804–814. Thornton, P.K., 2010. Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 365 (1554), 2853. Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J., 2016. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 106, 110–123. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service, 2017a. Dairy products: per capita consumption, United States (annual). Available from, https://www. ers.usda.gov/data-products/dairy-data/. (Accessed 15 May 2017). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service, 2017b. U.S. agricultural trade: imports. Available from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/ international-markets-trade/us-agricultural-trade/imports/. (Accessed 16 May 2017). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2014. 2012 census of agriculture highlights: farmers marketing. Available from, https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/ Farmers_Marketing/Highlights_Farmers_Marketing.pdf. (Accessed 15 May 2017). Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., 2007. Portion size me: downsizing our consumption norms. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 107 (7), 1103–1106. Ward, R., 2006. Commodity checkoff programs and generic advertising. Choices 21 (2), 55–60. Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S., 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (10), 3508–3513.

100

Environmental nutrition

Wikstr€ om, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., Clune, S., 2014. The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies—a neglected topic. J. Clean. Prod. 73 (15), 100–108. Williams, H., Wikstr€ om, F., Otterbring, T., L€ ofgren, M., Gustafsson, A., 2012. Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 24, 141–148. Wolfson, J.A., Bleich, S.N., Clegg Smith, K., Frattaroli, S., 2016. What does cooking mean to you?: Perceptions of cooking and factors related to cooking behavior. Appetite 97 (1), 146–154. Young, L.R., Nestle, M., 2002. The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Am. J. Public Health 92 (2), 246–249. Zahniser, S., Angadjivand, S., Hertz, T., Kuberka, L., Santos, A., 2015. NAFTA at 20: North America’s Free-Trade Area and Its Impact on Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture. WRS-15-01. Available from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/ 40485/51265_wrs-15-01.pdf?v¼42038. (Accessed 20 May 2017). Zimmerman, F.J., Shimoga, S.V., 2014. The effects of food advertising and cognitive load on food choices. BMC Public Health 14, 342.

Further reading Scholz, K., Eriksson, M., Strid, I., 2015. Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 94, 56–65.

CHAPTER 6

Food production and dietary patterns Heidi Lynch, Andrew Berardy, Christopher Wharton

Introduction Consumers make food purchasing decisions in light of any number of influential factors. Price, flavor, perceived food safety, and other considerations often play major roles in determining how consumers spend their food dollars. But while these factors characterize the decisions consumers make at the point of purchase, they may not fully reflect broader systemic forces that more fundamentally determine what foods are available for purchase in the first place. To best understand the full picture of the food environment and resulting dietary patterns, it is useful to consider purchasing and consumption behaviors from a food systems perspective. Factors such as resource inputs and outputs, waste streams, and feedback mechanisms play significant roles in food system operations, eventual consumption decisions, and health and environmental outcomes. In particular, the combination of consumer demand and ecosystem services contributes to the inputs driving a food system, while outputs result not only in food production but also waste production as an unintended byproduct (Sabate et al., 2016). This chapter will explore how different types and amounts of foods currently produced by food systems shape dietary patterns of various segments of the population. Ways in which these dietary patterns relate to health outcomes, nutritional adequacy, food safety, food waste, and food security will also be examined. Food systems refer to the progression of activities involved in the process of producing food through to its consumption, sometimes referred as “farm to fork.” Conceptually, food systems have been characterized in a variety of ways, from a linear food chain, to a cyclical food cycle, to an interconnected food web (Sobal et al., 1998). From a basic linear perspective, the food system begins at the producer level and includes production, processing, and distribution. Consumers then purchase, prepare, and consume food, and

Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00006-0

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

101

102

Environmental nutrition

dispose of any unused food waste. Portraying food systems through cycles and interconnected webs involves a more complex consideration of feedback mechanisms, trade-offs, and other nonlinear relationships vital to understanding all of the ramifications and outcomes of the structure of the system.

Food systems resources inputs Production Regardless of conceptualization, a number of aspects of food systems descriptions are consistent. For example, production is often a fundamental step in systems descriptions. Production involves many resource inputs. Such inputs include land used for growing crops or as pastureland for livestock, water for crops or livestock, energy in the form of fuel to operate farm machinery and to maintain storage areas for crops and livestock, fertilizer for crops, and labor to cultivate crops or raise livestock. In addition to the water and food livestock directly require, it is important to consider the resources needed to produce their feed as well.

Processing Processing is another vital step that can be simple or complex, depending on the food or entity involved. Processing food is likely to include washing and cleaning of foods to be packaged and would involve all matters related to slaughter and preparation of meat for packaging for sale. As slaughter occurs offsite from where livestock is raised, transportation is involved at this step. Processing food may be quite extensive, as is often the case for larger companies that distribute food across the country or internationally, or rather minimal, as when farmers bring their produce to the farmers’ market. Some degree of food waste usually occurs during processing when parts of the fruit or vegetable are discarded, for example, when beets are sold without their greens attached, and when parts of the animal not sold for consumption are discarded.

Distribution Distribution entails transporting the food from its site of production and processing to the point of purchase. There may be intermediate steps in this sequence, as when a third-party distributor purchases food directly from a farmer or a processor, and then sells it to other customers, including

Food production and dietary patterns

103

restaurants, retail outlets, or individual consumers. In the United States, a considerable amount of food produced and processed is transported across state lines, across the country or even distributed internationally. The benefits of such a model include contributing to a diversified food system with overlapping production and distribution across regions. However, some consumers advocate for eating locally to reduce “food miles” (the distance food travels from production to consumption) and to support local- or community-level food systems. A relatively new model that offers promising potential to bolster local food systems and serve this type of customer demand is the food hub. Food hubs allow farmers to focus more on farming and less on marketing and distribution (Barham et al., 2012). The general concept of a food hub involves having many local farmers sell their produce to a company that works as a distributor to various consumers, which may include restaurants, schools, stores, and individual consumers. Interestingly, though, only 11% of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from food come from the transportation phase and only 4% is due directly to the producer-to-consumer transportation. Conversely, 83% of food-related greenhouse gas emissions occur during the production phase (Weber and Matthews, 2008). This indicates that altering the type of foods that we choose to produce for consumption would have a more profound impact upon environmental sustainability compared to just shopping locally. Unfortunately, consumers are often unaware of how their dietary choices impact the environment, and are often unwilling to make dietary shifts toward less environmentally taxing foods, particularly with respect to reducing meat consumption (Tobler et al., 2011; Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017).

Food system resource outputs Once consumers purchase food, they must then prepare it for consumption (whether that is microwaving a frozen meal, or washing, chopping, and cooking whole foods to prepare a meal from scratch). Waste resulting from food production includes parts of produce and other foods not typically considered edible, such as stems, cores, and rinds, and parts of animals not typically consumed. Depending on the degree of processing, there may be considerable plastic and cardboard waste from packaging. While certain types of plastic packaging are recyclable, the exact types depend on the capabilities of the local recycling centers. Since packaging must be clean and food-free to be recycled, this extra step of washing plastic packaging may discourage consumers from taking this step and lead them to throw away

104

Environmental nutrition

most food packaging. Furthermore, although waste from produce may be composted, that from animal products cannot and must be disposed of in the landfill. In addition to waste from food preparation, uneaten leftovers or food spoilage also contributes to food waste. The amount of food wasted in the United States has increased by about 50% since 1974 with daily per capita food waste at 1400 kcal (Hall et al., 2009). Although composted food waste returns nutrients to the soil, thus positively contributing to the food system cycle, decomposing food in landfills is a source of greenhouse gas emissions, a contributor to global warming.

Food systems drivers and consequences Population growth Societal demands and natural resources represent key drivers and inputs to food systems. As the world population has grown substantially, particularly in the past centuries, feeding a larger global population has placed new demands and strains on food systems. Although it took thousands of years for the world population to reach 1 billion people, in only about 200 years the population increased sevenfold (United Nations Population Fund, 2017). Population growth is projected to continue to increase rapidly, particularly in underdeveloped parts of the world. In response, food production must also increase dramatically. As a result, researchers, policy makers, industry, and advocates alike continue to seek solutions for how to feed a projected 9.8 billion people by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2018). Since 1950, world capture fisheries and aquaculture have increased production over eightfold; nonetheless, since year 2000 population growth and demand for fish have outpaced this increased production (Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations, 2016). With the rapidly increasing world population, and the increased consumption of meat in countries that historically did not consume as much meat, overall global meat consumption is rising (FAO Corporate Document Respository, 2017). In tandem with this increased food production, resources such as land, agricultural feed, water, and fertilizer are also needed at increasing rates. Farmers must pay careful attention to factors such as climate and geography when considering what food to grow or livestock to raise, as well as financial resources such as federal government subsidies and costs associated with production of certain types of food. Continuing to produce food for typical Western dietary patterns that are heavy in animal protein and processed food

Food production and dietary patterns

105

is environmentally unsustainable. A growing awareness of the environmental impact of one’s dietary choices is leading some consumers to seek plant-based alternatives to meat (Mintel, 2016). Although overall meat consumption in the United States is increasing and red meat still accounts for more than half of the meat consumed, the type of meat being consumed is shifting toward more poultry and less red meat (Daniel et al., 2011). This shift may be due to increased awareness of health effects of consuming red meat, of environmental effects of raising beef, or a combination thereof.

Crop subsidies In the United States, production of certain crops is subsidized by the federal government. The five crops receiving the largest financial support are corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice; other subsidized crops include peanuts and sorghum (EWG, 2017). Conversely, fruits and vegetables may qualify for crop insurance or disaster payments, but typically do not receive the same level of support as other commodity crops. Agricultural producers may receive support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through commodity payments, price support, disaster assistance, and conservation. Small Scale Solutions for Your Farm is a program through the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) branch of the USDA that provides conservation educational material for farmers about environmental management for farmers on small- and mid-sized farms (FSA, 2017). These programs are designed in part to protect farmers in case of a poor crop season, yet the current system does not provide equal protection to producers of fruits and vegetables. As such, farming fruits and vegetables is a riskier undertaking compared to producing so-called commodity crops, and is often less lucrative as well. Given these differences in systems-level support, purchasing commodity crops and products made from these foods is quite inexpensive relative to purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables. Since cost is one of the most important factors when choosing food to purchase, particularly for low-income individuals, this system inadvertently predisposes people to purchase foods that are often less nutritious.

Global impact of food systems The culminating result of these factors influencing food system inputs is food available for human consumption, along with other unintended byproducts such as pollution, including solid and fluid waste, biological contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions (Sabate et al., 2016). For example, data from

106

Environmental nutrition

the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) in 2015 indicate that the United States produces an abundance of animal products for consumption. Adjusting for loss, 88 g (3.1 oz) of red meat, 74 g (2.6 oz) of poultry, 8.5 g (0.3 oz) of fish, and 204 g (7.2 oz) of dairy products were available per capita for daily consumption. Of plant foods, grain is available most abundantly (150 g, or 5.3 oz are available per capita). Interestingly, only 8.5 g (0.3 oz) of beans, 11.3 g (0.4 oz) of legumes, 105 g (3.7 oz) of fresh vegetables, and 62 g (2.2 oz) of fresh fruit were available per capita (USDA Economic Research Service, 2018). As availability is a large factor influencing consumer purchases, not only does this have profound implications for physical health, but also environmental health. Producing animal products is far more resource intensive and produces more pollutants compared to growing plants for food. These pollutants affect air, land, and water quality. Specifically, livestock produces about half of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and food systems (Rijsberman, 2017). Of the greenhouse gases, methane and carbon dioxide production increased the most due to agricultural activity (Goglio et al., 2018). These gases work to increase the global air temperature by trapping heat in the atmosphere. Even slight increases in average temperatures can have devastating effects on ecosystems globally, and experts agree that it is crucial to limit temperature increases since preindustrial times to less than 2°C (McGlade and Ekins, 2015). Continued production of animal agriculture and use of fossil fuels at current rates is incompatible with achieving this goal. Agricultural production affects air quality as well as atmospheric temperature. Ammonia emissions from agriculture contribute to fine particulate air pollution, which has negative consequences for human health (Giannadaki et al., 2018). In a vicious cycle, air pollution and climate change in turn adversely affect food production and consequently food supply and food security (McGlade and Ekins, 2015). Agriculture may impact land and air pollution in related ways by requiring land for agriculture, which may lead to deforestation. This deforestation then reduces the ability of the ecosystem to handle air pollutants emitted from agricultural production. In addition to deforestation, land often suffers from soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, chemical pollution from the application of fertilizers and pesticides, and pollution due to animal production (as from concentrated, high volumes of manure production) (Novotny, 1999). Such concentrated nutrient load often leads to runoff in nearby water systems, thus contaminating water and leading to eutrophication that affects algae production and aquatic life (Moss, 2008).

Food production and dietary patterns

107

Aspects of food systems and their outputs can have far-reaching effects beyond the immediate consumer. One example of this is concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an agricultural place where more than 1000 animal units are raised and confined in a restricted space for more than 45 days annually. An “animal unit” is 1000 pounds of live weight; therefore, CAFOs could house, for example, “1000 head of beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2500 swine weighing more than 55 pounds, 125 thousand broiler chickens, or 82 thousand laying hens” (USDA, 2017). However, any animal feeding operation that releases manure or wastewater into a waterway is considered a CAFO, regardless of the actual number of animals on the operation. In spite of attempts to regulate waste disposal from these CAFOs, antibiotics and other veterinary drugs, as well as microbial pathogens and excessive nutrient concentrations have been found in water sources near CAFOs as well as much farther downstream (Burkholder et al., 2007). This is a serious public health concern given that this may contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance and consequently the spread of infectious diseases (Gilchrist et al., 2007). Although studies on the health effects on individuals in communities near CAFOs yield conflicting results for some conditions, a recent systematic review demonstrated that Q fever in goats is associated with an increased risk of developing this fever in community members (O’Connor et al., 2017). Not only is the health of community members at stake; workers on such farms are routinely exposed to high levels of dust, endotoxins, and other volatile organic compounds, potentially exacerbating respiratory disorders (Basinas et al., 2017). Effects of pollution resulting from industrial food production are not limited to the region or even the country that produced the pollution. Oftentimes, it is the poorest people in less developed countries who suffer the most from environmental changes due to these outputs when they have contributed the least to this problem (Otto et al., 2017).

Lifecycle assessment Not all food production exerts the same amount of environmental consequences. Studies employing lifecycle impact assessments (LCAs) bear this out. LCA systematically quantifies the impacts of a given product considering its origin to final disposal and includes all processes between such as growing, harvesting, transporting, processing, packaging, cooking, storage, and waste disposal (Reijnders and Soret, 2003). Studies comparing effects of different dietary patterns on the environment often compare vegetarian and

108

Environmental nutrition

omnivorous diets, although several subcategories such as pescetarians or vegans may be considered as well. LCA studies have shown that vegan diets impart the least environmental toll, followed by vegetarian diets, and that omnivorous dietary patterns are the most resource intensive (Baroni et al., 2007). Specifically, land, energy, fertilizer, and pesticide use are more intensive for producing foods for omnivorous diets compared to vegetarian ones (Marlow et al., 2009). When looking at food items individually, production of animal products emits more greenhouse gases, and contributes more toward air acidification and freshwater eutrophication than growing plants for food (Masset et al., 2014a). Not all animal agriculture has the same environmental burden, however. Ruminants require exceptionally excessive energy inputs compared to energy output available, with lambs and beef cattle requiring 57 and 40 times the caloric input for the caloric output, respectively (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003). Additionally, compared to conventional farming, organic farming reduced total environmental impact considerably (Baroni et al., 2007). The reduction in environmental burden from organic farming pertains to omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets. Considering nutrition from an ecological perspective further elucidates the issues and opportunities inherent in optimizing dietary patterns for both health and environmental reasons (Leitzmann, 2003). A number of studies have examined the intersection of human and environmental health and found that often what is environmentally advantageous also promotes human health. For example, not only do plant-based diets produce fewer GHGEs, but vegetarians also have a lower hazard ratio for all-cause mortality (Soret et al., 2014). Additionally, foods with the highest negative environmental influence also tend to be lower in nutritional value (Masset et al., 2014b). One way of reducing diet-related GHGEs and simultaneously benefiting human health is to reduce total caloric intake and increase percent of plant-based foods in the diet. Adherence to a dietary pattern widely recommended in the prevention and management of hypertension, the DASH diet (dietary approaches to stop hypertension), has been shown to reduce GHGEs as well (Monsivais et al., 2015). Further, switching to a more plant-based diet, while remaining within recommended dietary guidelines, could reduce GHGEs by 29%–70% and mortality by 6%–10% (Springmann et al., 2016).

Dietary patterns, health, and equity As highly adaptable eaters, humans choose to follow a wide range of dietary patterns. Broadly speaking, these may be classified as omnivorous (or mixed) diets and vegetarian diets (with several subcategories within this class).

Food production and dietary patterns

109

The term “omnivorous diet” refers to a dietary pattern that includes meat, fish, and poultry. Pescetarians are people who do not eat meat or poultry, but include fish in their diets. Those who follow a vegetarian diet, unless specified more precisely, typically adhere to a lactoovo vegetarian pattern of consumption. These diets contain dairy and eggs, but not meat, fish, or poultry. One may be a lactovegetarian, meaning the person eats dairy but not eggs, or an ovovegetarian, who eats eggs but not dairy. Vegans, also called “true vegetarians,” exclude all animal products from their diet, including honey and gelatin. Results from a 2016 Harris Poll, conducted on behalf of the Vegetarian Research Society, showed that 3.3% of adults in the United States report never eating meat, fish, or poultry (that is, they are vegetarian). Of these, about half are vegan. Additionally, 37% of survey respondents report always or sometimes eating meals without meat, fish, or poultry when dining out (The Vegetarian Resource Group, 2015). People choose to follow a given dietary pattern for a host of common reasons. These reasons may include physical health considerations, religious beliefs, moral or ethical concerns, and convictions about environmental sustainability. Regardless, dietary patterns have profound effects on physical health and nutritional adequacy, as well as food safety, food waste, and food security. Unfortunately, too often people’s food choices are more a result of what is accessible and affordable than what they may otherwise prefer to eat. In spite of the abundance of food available in the United States and globally, food insecurity affects many households, leaving children and adults hungry in the midst of abundant food production. Food deserts, which are places in which there is minimal access to grocery stores, farmers’ markets, or other places to buy fresh produce and healthy food, leave residents in the vicinity few options but to purchase highly processed foods of little nutritional value at gas stations and convenience stores. This next section will begin by discussing physical health ramifications of specific dietary patterns and then focus upon food justice and equity, examining the societal effects of our current food systems and global ramifications of these systems upon food security and health currently and in the future.

Physical health It is well established that risk of developing numerous chronic diseases is mitigated by following a healthy diet that includes plentiful fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fat (Schwingshackl et al., 2018). As chronic diseases affect millions of people in the United States, it is prudent to adopt healthy lifestyles, including dietary choices, that optimize health and

110

Environmental nutrition

minimize risk of disease. According to the 2016 Executive Summary from the American Heart Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 1.5% of US adults follow a dietary pattern conducive to cardiovascular health. This is particularly concerning since the leading risk factor for death and disability in the United States is poor diet quality (Lloyd-Jones et al., 2010). Although heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, about 30.3 million Americans live with diabetes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). The importance of adhering to a healthy, balanced diet for life is paramount to controlling these diseases. Multiple large epidemiological studies such as the Adventist Health Studies, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Oxford Study, the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and studies using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) provide valuable information about health and dietary patterns. Analyses conducted using these data often divide participants into vegetarians (and associated subcategories) and nonvegetarians. Studies comparing vegetarians and omnivores have shown that vegetarian diets are associated with lower all-cause mortality (Orlich et al., 2013), lower body mass index (BMI) (Orlich and Fraser, 2014), a reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (Tonstad et al., 2013), hypertension (Yokoyama et al., 2014), hyperlipidemia (Wang et al., 2015), and the metabolic syndrome (Rizzo et al., 2011). The protective effect of a vegetarian diet in these cases is independent of other health-promoting activities. There are certain differences in terms of amount of protection conferred by the various subcategories of vegetarian diet, and these differ by disease. Other studies look at intake of certain food groups, but not specifically at whether the participant is vegetarian. For example, it is well accepted that adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, beans and legumes, and whole grains minimizes risk of developing chronic diseases whereas excessive consumption of trans fat, saturated fat, sodium, red meat, and added sugar is deleterious for health (Wang and Hu, 2017; Aburto et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2014; Bellavia et al., 2016; Oyebode et al., 2014; Guenther et al., 2013; Alasalvar and Bolling, 2015; Messina, 2014; Zhu and Sang, 2017). The higher rates of consumption of these protective plant foods likely confer the health benefits of the vegetarian diet (Clarys et al., 2014; Farmer et al., 2011). Granted, there are various degrees of diet quality among vegetarians and omnivores, and when comparing particularly healthconscious vegetarians and omnivores the health data are less disparate (Key et al., 2006).

Food production and dietary patterns

111

Nutritional adequacy In spite of the well-documented health benefits of vegetarian diets and endorsement by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Melina et al., 2016), some concerns have been raised regarding nutritional adequacy of vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets. Vegan diets are typically lower in essential fatty acids (Harris, 2014), calcium (Clarys et al., 2014), and vitamin B-12 content (Pawlak et al., 2014). Additionally, although vegetarian and vegan diets often contain as much as or higher amounts of iron (Clarys et al., 2014), the bioavailability of iron from plant sources is lower than that from animal sources, resulting in lower serum levels of iron in vegetarians (Haider et al., 2016). Likewise, tissue concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids are markedly lower in vegetarians, in spite of plentiful intake of α-linolenic acid (ALA), a plant-derived omega-3 fatty acid, since its conversion to docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is quite low (Harris, 2014). As vitamin B-12 is found naturally exclusively in animal products, vegans must either consume sufficient amounts of fortified foods or take a vitamin B-12 supplement in order to avoid deficiency. Other types of vegetarians may be at risk of developing marginal serum B-12 status depending on the amount of animal food (dairy and eggs) they choose to include in their diets. Zinc is another nutrient typically consumed less by vegetarians, with resulting lower serum levels of zinc (Foster et al., 2013). Paradoxically, in spite of the lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the diets of vegetarians, a cardioprotective effect of a vegetarian diet is still consistently observed (Fraser, 2009; Szeto et al., 2004). Whether supplementation with marine algae-based (vegan) omega-3 supplements would provide further protection for vegetarians remains to be determined. Likewise, the lower serum iron levels frequently observed among vegetarians may not necessarily be problematic since excessive iron is associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes (Simcox and McClain, 2013). The safety of vegetarian and vegan diets has been established for numerous specific life stages including childhood, pregnancy, lactation, and advanced age. As with nonvegetarians, special attention to specific nutrients is merited in each of these cases but may be met through a well-planned vegetarian diet (Melina et al., 2016). In contrast to vegetarian diets, omnivorous ones often exceed recommended dietary allowances for nutrients such as saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium while they tend to be low in fiber and consumption of fruits and vegetables (Clarys et al., 2014). Perhaps not surprisingly, prevalence

112

Environmental nutrition

of overweight and obesity is higher among omnivores as well, a likely contributor to the increased risks of developing numerous chronic diseases as noted previously. Even if one is not vegetarian, shifting some toward having more of one’s protein come from plant sources is reasonable both for one’s physical health and for environmental sustainability.

Food security and federal assistance programs According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), there is sufficient food production for everyone globally to consume over 2700 kcal per day (FAO, 2017). Production of sufficient energy from food is not a problem, but in spite of this, many Americans and others worldwide suffer from nutrition-related health problems. Globally between 2014 and 2016, 794.6 million people (10.9% of the world’s population) were undernourished (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2015). Hunger is not a problem limited to developing nations. Over 12% of households in the United States are food insecure, meaning that at certain times, these families were uncertain about if they would be able to provide enough food to all family members, or they were not able to get sufficient food to meet the needs of everyone in the household. Of households with children under age 18, 16.5% of households were considered food insecure. This means that in 2016, 41.2 million people in the United States lived in food-insecure households, including 6.5 million children (USDA Economic Research Service, 2017). Ironically, while hundreds of millions of people worldwide suffer from hunger and undernutrition, the problem of overnutrition and malnutrition is also widespread, particularly in developed countries. A person may be overweight, yet not adequately nourished if he or she is not consuming enough nutrient-dense food. Someone living in a food-insecure household may still suffer from obesity and associated health problems, in large part due to the accessibility and affordability of processed foods with minimal nutritional value compared to fresh produce, particularly when living in a food desert. Not only is food insecurity currently a problem—it is predicted to increase worldwide due to global warming’s effects on food systems (Battisti and Naylor, 2009; Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). Given this, it is crucial that steps are taken to avert the imminent danger of worsening food security and poor health for millions of vulnerable people globally. Clearly food systems’ outputs and global warming are closely related— producing food affects the environment, and resulting environmental changes directly affect the productiveness of food systems. Given that

Food production and dietary patterns

113

producing animal protein, particularly red meat, typically is more environmentally taxing than producing plant protein, one practical step that could be taken would be to reduce consumption of red meat and other animal protein and to increase consumption of plant protein. Numerous federal food assistance programs are in place to help those earning below the federal poverty level to achieve a healthy diet. Of these in the United States, the Supplemental Food and Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called Food Stamps) serves the most people. For the fiscal year of 2011, 44.7 million people received assistance from SNAP with an average amount of $147 per person (United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, 2012). The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) serves pregnant and postpartum mothers and their children up to age 5. Over seven million people were served through WIC in the fiscal year 2017 (United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, 2018). Both SNAP and WIC vouchers must be redeemed at approved vendor locations. While neither food assistance program may have their benefits redeemed for alcohol, WIC has more regulations regarding what types of food are covered by vouchers compared to SNAP. These provisions certainly can help alleviate food insecurity, but currently WIC does not offer a vegetarian alternative to their provision for fish, and a vegan alternative is not available for the cheese voucher (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, 2016). Additionally, the vouchers specifically allotted for fresh fruits and vegetables are not available to all participants and are provided in limited amounts compared to vouchers for other types of food. This lack of access to and ability to afford fresh fruits and vegetables is one contributor to poorer health status of many lower-income Americans.

Food waste At a time when so many people suffer from food insecurity in the United States, 30%–40% of the food supply continues to go to waste (USDA Office of the Chief Economist, 2017). In 2010, 79 million tons of food were wasted in the United States alone (Melikoglu et al., 2013). Loss occurs at both the consumer and retail levels, corresponding to $161 billion worth of food in 2010, as well as the farm and distribution levels (USDA Office of the Chief Economist, 2017). Food waste is not limited to the United States or to other developed countries. While current data on food waste in developing countries are sparse, it appears that food waste occurs more commonly immediately postharvest in developing countries and that postconsumer

114

Environmental nutrition

food waste accounts for the majority of food waste among affluent nations (Parfitt et al., 2010). Not only is this financially costly to individuals and companies, but wasted food that ends up in landfills results in the production of methane, a potent contributor to global warming (Hall et al., 2009; Moss et al., 2000). Food waste is the largest component in landfills, and landfills are the third leading contributor to the production of methane gas (USDA Office of the Chief Economist, 2017). Furthermore, this wasted food could be otherwise used in energy production. It is estimated that energy equal to 42.6% of delivered energy to the US food system is wasted in landfills, and that over 100% of the United Kingdom’s current renewable energy could be provided by energy lost in landfills (Melikoglu et al., 2013). In response to the extensiveness and costliness of food waste, the first national food loss and waste goal in the United States was implemented in September 2015 with a goal of reducing food waste and loss by 50% by 2030 (USDA Office of the Chief Economist, 2017).

Other 4.2% Rubber, leather & textiles 10.8%

Paper & paperboard 14.3% Yard trimmings 7.9%

Food 21.6%

Metals 9.4%

Glass 5.2% Wood 8.1%

Plastics 18.5%

Figure taken from USDA EPA advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 Fact Sheet Report, published November 2016 (USDA EPA, 2016)

Food production and dietary patterns

115

Quantity losses at the consumer level are larger than retail level losses for all categories except added fats and oils Retail

Tree nuts and peanuts

Consumer\1

Eggs Added fats and oils Meat, poultry, and fish Added sugar and sweeteners Fruit Grain products Vegetables Dairy products 0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

Billion pounds 1\ Includes loss in the home and in away-from-home locations. Includes cooking shrinkage and uneaten food.

11

From USDA/ERS Measurement of Food Loss in the United States, http://sites. nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_189377.pdf, USDA.

Some of the food wasted is perfectly safe and nutritious, but is rejected for aesthetic purposes (de Hooge et al., 2017). In response to this, followers of the “Ugly Food Movement” intentionally use suboptimal food and celebrate its supposed imperfections. Some grocery stores sell such produce at reduced prices, and CSA-style services such as Imperfect Produce sell exclusively imperfect food. Transforming consumers’ mindsets of how food should look, as well as improving understanding about product shelf life, may contribute to reducing food waste. Another approach that simultaneously reduces food waste and contributes to improving food security is gleaning (Lee et al., 2017). This ancient practice involves someone gathering crops that were left behind during the initial harvest and would otherwise remain in the field. In modern settings, gleaning is often accomplished by groups of volunteers on behalf of food banks and food pantries. Like consumption of suboptimal produce, gleaning is an example of food rescue. Some programs, such as Market on the Move

116

Environmental nutrition

From National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/03/ global-food-waste-statistics/.

in Arizona, have been designed to rescue produce destined for the landfill and sell it at a steep discount, thus increasing access and affordability of produce.

Food safety Production of sufficient quantities of food for the exploding global population of the 20th century was made possible largely by advances in technologies resulting in higher crop yields and better resistance to pests, disease, and other growth challenges. This incredible crop productivity is often referred to as the “green revolution.” Unfortunately, many of the agrochemicals including fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides frequently used in conventional agriculture have deleterious effects on human and other biotic health (Carvalho, 2006). In humans, chemicals can accumulate in adipose tissue and be passed on through breastmilk. Adverse effects of exposure to certain synthetic agricultural chemicals in humans include cancer, obesity, and endocrine disruption (Carvalho, 2017). Although exposure

Food production and dietary patterns

117

to these chemicals is decreasing, residues remain in the environment, and new alternative chemicals present their own challenges. Farmworkers are perhaps the most vulnerable as they are often the ones spraying crops with these chemicals, and residents of communities by farms using such chemicals also have higher exposure. However, it is not only humans who are affected by these chemicals. Other animals that are vital to food systems maintenance and resilience, including bees, birds, fish, amphibians, and mammals, may suffer toxic effects as well, thus further disrupting ecosystem sustainability. Certain chemicals, such as DDT, have since been banned from use in most places for their documented adverse health effects; however, they still are in use in some areas of South Asia (Carvalho, 2017). As long as such chemicals remain in use, their effects will be experienced beyond the location of their immediate application due to chemical drift from water runoff and wind. Such drift is not localized just to the surrounding area, but a global dispersion of chemicals applied in the tropics has been documented moving toward both poles (Carvalho, 2017). As such, use of these chemicals has farreaching and long-lasting concerning implications. Since conventional agriculture typically provides higher crop yields compared to organic agriculture (De Ponti et al., 2012), the challenge of how to grow a sufficient amount of food for the world’s increasing population, while using sustainable and nontoxic means is a matter of great urgency. One option that has been in practice for many years, yet has emerged in the spotlight in recent decades due to advances in technology, is genetic modification of crops. Genetic modification is a method by which crop characteristics are modified for certain desirable traits, such as pest resistance, through selection of specific genes. Although there are many promising aspects of genetic modification of crops, such as improving produce shelf life, favorably altering macronutrient composition, and improving food quality, numerous groups have expressed concern about potential unintentional effects, such as possible antibiotic resistance, unintentional gene transfer to wild plants, pollution, and allergenicity or toxicity of new crops (Uzogara, 2000). It may be that genetic modification could be beneficial in certain circumstances but ill-advised in others.

Conclusion Myriad influences impact consumer dietary choice and patterns. Although the focus of many food and nutrition professionals is on consumer food

118

Environmental nutrition

choice, powerful factors in the food system converge to create an environment in which consumers are faced with many considerations when choosing what to eat. These individual food choices are strongly influenced by food systems and broader societal structures. These decisions build into dietary patterns that have profound influences upon environmental sustainability, physical health, food security, and food safety. Conscientious dietary choices may contribute simultaneously to human and environmental well-being and are essential for the future flourishing of food systems and human well-being.

References Aburto, N.J., et al., 2013. Effect of lower sodium intake on health: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ 346, f1326. Alasalvar, C., Bolling, B.W., 2015. Review of nut phytochemicals, fat-soluble bioactives, antioxidant components and health effects. Br. J. Nutr. 113 (S2), S68–S78. Barham, J., et al., 2012. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide: Food Hub Impacts on Regional Food Systems, and the Resources Available to Support Their Growth and Development. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC. Baroni, L., et al., 2007. Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 61 (2), 279–286. Basinas, I., et al., 2017. Exposure to inhalable dust, endotoxin, and total volatile organic carbons on dairy farms using manual and automated feeding systems. Ann. Work Expo. Health 61 (3), 344–355. Battisti, D.S., Naylor, R.L., 2009. Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323 (5911), 240–244. Bellavia, A., Stilling, F., Wolk, A., 2016. High red meat intake and all-cause cardiovascular and cancer mortality: is the risk modified by fruit and vegetable intake? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104 (4), 1137–1143. Burkholder, J., et al., 2007. Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (2), 308. Carvalho, F.P., 2006. Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety. Environ. Sci. Pol. 9 (7), 685–692. Carvalho, F.P., 2017. Pesticides, environment, and food safety. Food Energy Secur. 6 (2), 48–60. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Dept of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. Clarys, P., et al., 2014. Comparison of nutritional quality of the vegan, vegetarian, semivegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diet. Nutrients 6 (3), 1318–1332. Daniel, C.R., et al., 2011. Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 14 (4), 575–583. de Hooge, I.E., et al., 2017. This apple is too ugly for me!: consumer preferences for suboptimal food products in the supermarket and at home. Food Qual. Prefer. 56, 80–92. De Ponti, T., Rijk, B., Van Ittersum, M.K., 2012. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 108, 1–9.

Food production and dietary patterns

119

EWG, 2017. Farm subsidy primer. Available from, https://farm.ewg.org/subsidyprimer. php. (Accessed 8 October 2017). FAO, 2017. Agriculture and food security. Available from, http://www.fao.org/docrep/ x0262e/x0262e05.htm. (Accessed 21 September 2017). FAO Corporate Document Respository, 2017. World agriculture: toward 2015/2030, an FAO perspective. Available from, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/ y4252e05e.htm#TopOfPage. (Accessed 21 September 2017). Farmer, B., et al., 2011. A vegetarian dietary pattern as a nutrient-dense approach to weight management: an analysis of the national health and nutrition examination survey 1999–2004. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 111 (6), 819–827. Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations, 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All. FAA, Rome, p. 204. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO, Rome. Available from, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf. Foster, M., et al., 2013. Effect of vegetarian diets on zinc status: a systematic review and metaanalysis of studies in humans. J. Sci. Food Agric. 93 (10), 2362–2371. Fraser, G.E., 2009. Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (5), 1607S–1612S. FSA, 2017. Farm program payments. Available from, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/farmprograms-payments. (Accessed 8 October 2017). Giannadaki, D., et al., 2018. Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 622, 1304–1316. Gilchrist, M.J., et al., 2007. The potential role of concentrated animal feeding operations in infectious disease epidemics and antibiotic resistance. Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (2), 313. Goglio, P., et al., 2018. A comparison of methods to quantify greenhouse gas emissions of cropping systems in LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4010–4017. Guenther, P.M., et al., 2013. Update of the healthy eating index: HEI-2010. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 113 (4), 569–580. Haider, L.M., et al., 2016. The effect of vegetarian diets on iron status in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58 (8), 1359–1374. Hall, K.D., et al., 2009. The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PloS One 4(11). e7940. Harris, W.S., 2014. Achieving optimal n–3 fatty acid status: the vegetarian’s challenge … or not. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Supplement 1), 449S–452S. Hartmann, C., Siegrist, M., 2017. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 61, 11–25. Key, T.J., Appleby, P.N., Rosell, M.S., 2006. Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 65 (01), 35–41. Lee, D., et al., 2017. Combining two wrongs to make two rights: mitigating food insecurity and food waste through gleaning operations. Food Policy 68, 40–52. Leitzmann, C., 2003. Nutrition ecology: the contribution of vegetarian diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 (3), 657S–659S. Lloyd-Jones, D., et al., 2010. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update. Circulation 121 (7), e46–e215. Marlow, H.J., et al., 2009. Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (5), 1699S–1703S. Masset, G., et al., 2014a. Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 99 (6), 1460–1469.

120

Environmental nutrition

Masset, G., et al., 2014b. Identifying sustainable foods: the relationship between environmental impact, nutritional quality, and prices of foods representative of the French diet. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114 (6), 862–869. McGlade, C., Ekins, P., 2015. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 517 (7533), 187. Melikoglu, M., Lin, C.S.K., Webb, C., 2013. Analysing global food waste problem: pinpointing the facts and estimating the energy content. Cent. Eur. J. Eng. 3 (2), 157–164. Melina, V., Craig, W., Levin, S., 2016. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: vegetarian diets. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 116 (12), 1970–1980. Messina, V., 2014. Nutritional and health benefits of dried beans. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Supplement 1), 437S–442S. Mintel, 2016. Food and Drink Trends 2017. Mintel, pp. 5–10. Monsivais, P., et al., 2015. Greater accordance with the dietary approaches to stop hypertension dietary pattern is associated with lower diet-related greenhouse gas production but higher dietary costs in the United Kingdom. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 102 (1), 138–145. Moss, B., 2008. Water pollution by agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363 (1491), 659–666. Moss, A.R., Jouany, J.-P., Newbold, J., 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Ann. Zootech. 49, 231–253. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, 2016. Review of WIC Food Packages: Proposed Framework for Revisions: Interim Report. National Academies Press. Novotny, V., 1999. Diffuse pollution from agriculture—a worldwide outlook. Water Sci. Technol. 39 (3), 1–13. O’Connor, A.M., et al., 2017. Updated systematic review: associations between proximity to animal feeding operations and health of individuals in nearby communities. Syst. Rev. 6 (1), 86. Orlich, M.J., Fraser, G.E., 2014. Vegetarian diets in the Adventist Health Study 2: a review of initial published findings. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Supplement 1), 353S–358S. Orlich, M.J., et al., 2013. Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in Adventist Health Study 2. JAMA Intern. Med. 173 (13), 1230–1238. Otto, I.M., et al., 2017. Social vulnerability to climate change: a review of concepts and evidence. Reg. Environ. Chang. 17 (6), 1651–1662. Oyebode, O., et al., 2014. Fruit and vegetable consumption and all-cause, cancer and CVD mortality: analysis of Health Survey for England data. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 68 (9), p.jech-2013-203500. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365 (1554), 3065–3081. Pawlak, R., Lester, S., Babatunde, T., 2014. The prevalence of cobalamin deficiency among vegetarians assessed by serum vitamin B12: a review of literature. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 68 (5), 541. Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 (3), 660S–663S. Reijnders, L., Soret, S., 2003. Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 (3), 664S–668S. Rijsberman, F., 2017. The key role of the meat industry in transformation to a low-carbon, climate resilient, sustainable economy. Meat Sci. 132, 2–5. Rizzo, N.S., et al., 2011. Vegetarian dietary patterns are associated with a lower risk of metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care 34 (5), 1225–1227. Sabate, J., Harwatt, H., Soret, S., 2016. Environmental nutrition: A new frontier for public health. Am. J. Public Health 106 (5), 815–821. Schmidhuber, J., Tubiello, F.N., 2007. Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (50), 19703–19708.

Food production and dietary patterns

121

Schwingshackl, L., Bogensberger, B., Hoffmann, G., 2018. Diet quality as assessed by the healthy eating index, alternate healthy eating index, dietary approaches to stop hypertension score, and health outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 118 (1), 74–100.e11. Simcox, J.A., McClain, D.A., 2013. Iron and diabetes risk. Cell Metab. 17 (3), 329–341. Sobal, J., Khan, L.K., Bisogni, C., 1998. A conceptual model of the food and nutrition system. Soc. Sci. Med. 47 (7), 853–863. Soret, S., et al., 2014. Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Supplement 1), 490S–495S. Springmann, M., et al., 2016. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (15), 4146–4151. Szeto, Y., Kwok, T.C., Benzie, I.F., 2004. Effects of a long-term vegetarian diet on biomarkers of antioxidant status and cardiovascular disease risk. Nutrition 20 (10), 863–866. The Vegetarian Resource Group, 2015. How often do Americans eat vegetarian meals? And how many adults in the U.S. are vegetarian? Available from, http://www.vrg.org/blog/ 2015/05/29/how-often-do-americans-eat-vegetarian-meals-and-how-many-adultsin-the-u-s-are-vegetarian-2/. (Accessed 18 April 2016). Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H., Siegrist, M., 2011. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 57 (3), 674–682. Tonstad, S., et al., 2013. Vegetarian diets and incidence of diabetes in the Adventist Health Study-2. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 23 (4), 292–299. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2018. World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Available from, https:// www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects2017.html. (Accessed 20 January 2018). United Nations Population Fund, 2017. World population trends. Available from, http:// www.unfpa.org/world-population-trends. (Accessed 21 September 2017). United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, 2012. Building a Healthy America: A Profile of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Office of Research and Analysis. United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, 2018. WIC Program: Total Participation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, USA. USDA, 2017 December 22. Animal Feeding Operations: Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available from, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo/. USDA Economic Research Service, 2017. Food Security Status of U.S. Households in 2016. Available from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-securityin-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#foodsecure. (Accessed 21 September 2017). USDA Economic Research Service, 2018. Food availability (per capita) data system. Available from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capitadata-system/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/#Food Availability. (Accessed 27 January 2018). USDA EPA, 2016. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2014 Fact Sheet Assessing Trends in Material Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfilling in the United States. Available from, https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/2014_smmfactsheet_508.pdf. USDA Office of the Chief Economist, 2017. U.S. food waste challenge FAQs. Available from, https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm. (Accessed 22 September 2017). Uzogara, S.G., 2000. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: a review. Biotechnol. Adv. 18 (3), 179–206.

122

Environmental nutrition

Wang, D., Hu, F., 2017. Dietary fat and risk of cardiovascular disease: recent controversies and advances. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 37, 423. Wang, F., et al., 2015. Effects of vegetarian diets on blood lipids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 4 (10), e002408. Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S., 2008. Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States. ACS Publications, USA. Yang, Q., et al., 2014. Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern. Med. 174 (4), 516–524. Yokoyama, Y., et al., 2014. Vegetarian diets and blood pressure: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern. Med. 174 (4), 577–587. Zhu, Y., Sang, S., 2017. Phytochemicals in whole grain wheat and their health-promoting effects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 61 (7)

CHAPTER 7

Environmental degradation—An undesirable output of the food system Harry Aiking

Introduction Disregarding their water content, the composition of all organisms (humans, animals, plants, microorganisms) is extremely similar with respect to chemical elements: about 48% carbon, 30% oxygen, 8% nitrogen, 4% hydrogen, and 10% other elements, including phosphorus, sulfur and various trace metals (Frieden, 1972; Aiking, 1977). Plants are fixing atmospheric carbon themselves but, in contrast, humans and animals need to consume plants (or one another) in order to acquire their carbon (acquiring many other elements at the same time). When humans were hunter-gatherers, doing this was rather straightforward. More than 10,000 years ago, we turned to agriculture and human population densities started to rise (Diamond, 1999). Initially, soil, seeds, and sun sufficed. Subsequently, horse power and irrigation water were commandeered. About 100 years ago (Erisman et al., 2008), chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides took off, and so did human numbers. The sheer magnitude of current food production not only threatens resources, but also brings about considerable pollution. Via feedback inhibition, both resource depletion and pollution may hamper further food production increases. In addition, they threaten biodiversity, ecosystem health, and human health, both directly and via climate change (McMichael et al., 2007). Sustainability may be viewed as the continued existence of favorable dynamic equilibriums in biogeochemical cycles (Aiking, 2009). Currently, the nitrogen and carbon cycles have been accelerated by man beyond what can be absorbed by the planetary ecosystem, and the water cycle is close to its carrying capacity (Rockstr€ om et al., 2009). In all three cases, food production is a major driver (Aiking, 2014). By the same token, the degradation of pollution and wastes caused by food production has largely exceeded the Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00007-2

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

123

124

Environmental nutrition

Air

Biota Soil

Water

(A) Human activity

Emission

Concentration

Exposure

Effect

(B) Fig. 1 Environmental compartments (A) and the transmission pathway (B).

planet’s carrying capacity. In this chapter, the resulting environmental degradation is sketched and some mitigation measures are suggested. Polluting emissions may enter the environment in any of the four compartments that are usually distinguished: air, water, soil, and biota (Fig. 1). Generally, emissions are transported to other compartments and, more often than not, chemically transformed during transmission. Ultimately, however, they have impacts on biota without exception (Aiking et al., 1989). All these processes belong in the realm of environmental chemistry and toxicology. In this context, the four compartments are entirely different (gases, liquids, hydrophilic solids, and hydrophobic solids, respectively). Therefore, in this chapter the compartments will be treated one by one, each with a few examples illustrating one of the major undesirable outputs of the food system.

Air—Greenhouse gases The sheer bulk of food production makes it a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs). During the agricultural phase alone, more calories of mineral fuel are input than food calories are output at the end. An often underestimated contribution is the tremendous amount of energy required to produce nitrogen fertilizer from atmospheric nitrogen. In fact, the energy embedded in fertilizer pellets has been estimated to be responsible for 37% of all energy expenditure in US agriculture (Lang et al., 2009, p. 193). In contrast, the GHG emissions associated with transport (“food-miles”) are generally overestimated, while GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average US

Environmental degradation

125

household’s 8.1 ton CO2e/year footprint for food consumption. Transportation, however, represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4% (Weber and Matthews, 2008). Obviously, different food groups exhibit a large range of GHG intensities. In general, animal products are more GHG-intensive than plant products, because of conversion losses from feed crops to meat and dairy, as a result of livestock maintenance energy requirements for sustaining movement, metabolism, and body temperature. In 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report “Livestock’s long shadow” provided a landmark likely to be remembered primarily for its figures on climate change, which were hotly debated. As summarized in its executive summary: “With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.” (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The 18% quoted was considered an obvious underestimate; for example, Goodland and Anhang (2009) proposed 51% instead. However, the trouble with estimates of this kind is that emissions can only be approximated and their allocation across inputs (type of land, animal, feed, weather, etc.) and outputs (meat, milk, eggs, hides, feathers, gelatin, etc.) remain arbitrary, to name just a few of the numerous potential sources of uncertainty. Since the message is clear that GHG emissions from livestock (in particular, methane from beef cattle) are exceedingly significant, the fact seems more important than the precise numerical value, which is in any case fraught with considerable scientific uncertainty and “framing” issues (de Boer et al., 2010). Taking 18% and 51% as the lower and upper bounds seems to provide a fair range, considering the complexity of the issue at stake. At any rate, it is much more important to get the health and environmental benefits of a diet change across to consumers, but the latter (environmental benefits) is the hardest part (de Boer et al., 2016). The most important GHGs are CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane), and N2O (nitrous oxide). Carbon dioxide results from combustion processes (i.e., chemical reactions with oxygen, including metabolic as well as fuel combustion). Nitrous oxide may result from fuel combustion; in addition, it can be formed from other nitrogen compounds (such as fertilizer). Methane results from bacterial processes in the absence of oxygen exclusively (including in ruminant stomachs and, to a lesser extent, in manure and in

126

Environmental nutrition

rice paddies). Integrated over 100 years, the GWP (global warming potential) of CH4 is 25 times that of CO2, and the GWP of N2O is 298 times that of CO2. Multiplied by these factors, one arrives at CO2 equivalents, to facilitate a straightforward comparison. However, comparisons will never be easy, and sometimes they will even be misleading, because many factors are involved, including ambient soil and meteorological conditions, and production methods. On average, livestock account for 9% (CO2), 35%– 40% (CH4), and 65% (N2O) of global anthropogenic emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006, pp. 112–114), respectively. A more detailed example is provided in Table 1, stemming from a paper that makes the required calculations and their ins and outs abundantly clear (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez, 2009). Table 1 illustrates, for example, the effects of transport by boat versus plane, the conversion losses from feed crops to animal products, fuel spent to catch cod, and the influence of water content (milk vs cheese). In addition, there is a wealth of publications on diet change scenarios, nutrition, health, and policy aspects relating to GHG emissions and climate change (e.g., Bennetzen et al., 2016; Hedenus et al., 2014; Ranganathan et al., 2016; Soret et al., 2014; van Dooren et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2016; Wellesley et al., 2015).

Table 1 Illustrative GHG emissions from farm to fork (GWP integrated over 100 years) for selected Swedish food products GHGs (kg CO2 equivalents/kg) Food products

CO2

N2O

CH4

Total

Carrots (domestic, fresh) Potatoes (domestic, cooked) Milk (domestic, 4% fat) Pasta (Italian, cooked) Oranges (overseas by boat, fresh) Rice (overseas by boat, cooked) Eggs (domestic, cooked) Chicken (domestic, cooked) Cod (domestic, cooked) Pork (domestic, cooked) Cheese (domestic) Tropical fruit (overseas by plane, fresh) Beef (domestic, cooked)

0.38 0.40 0.45 0.96 1.1 0.59 1.7 3.1 8.5 3.9 5.0 11 6.9

0.04 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.21 0.74 1.2 0.0 1.6 1.3 0.23 6.6

0.0 0.0 0.45 0.0 0.0 0.52 0.04 0.01 0.0 3.8 4.5 0.0 17

0.42 0.45 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.5 4.3 8.5 9.3 11 11 30

Source: Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Gonzalez, A.D., 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89(Suppl.), 1704S–1709S.

Environmental degradation

127

Water—Nitrogen and phosphorus Though many pollutants initially enter the environment via the water compartment, the most deleterious impacts by far are caused by nitrogen compounds (for an overview, see Smil, 2001 and Sutton et al., 2011), primarily deriving from artificial fertilizer and manure. In fact, less than 50% of these compounds (Erisman et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2013) is taken up by crops, and most of the remainder disappears via runoff and surface water into seas and oceans. A small trickle is shunted to groundwater (which is generally considered part of the soil compartment). In the latter case, soil bacteria partly transform innocuous ammonium salts into carcinogenic nitrites and nitrates. Therefore, appropriate care should be taken when using groundwater wells in agricultural areas for drinking water purposes (Townsend and Howarth, 2010). The main impact of this huge flow of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds is on biodiversity in shallow coastal zones, which harbor 80% of all aquatic species. Algae grow abundantly under these conditions of eutrophication (nutrient-richness) and tend to bloom massively. When they die off, such algal blooms are degraded by bacteria, using so much oxygen in the process that hypoxic coastal shelves result (oxygen level below 2 mg/L). A notorious example is the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, situated near New Orleans. The Mississippi carries so much nutrient-rich runoff (such as from the Corn Belt) that the surface area of the dead zone averages 13,650 km2. In 2015, the surface area was 16,760 km2, and no downward trend is in sight. Evidently, similar dead zones can be found on every continental shelf, in particular, where flow rates are low and agricultural inputs high. In the tightly encapsulated Baltic Sea, for example, the situation has been deteriorating year after year (Carstensen et al., 2014), and the Baltic dead zone is currently the largest in the world. Aquatic biodiversity loss caused by algal blooms and their consequent dead zones is brought about by emissions from artificial fertilizer and livestock manure alike (Raney et al., 2009). In terms of the water footprint (Vanham et al., 2013), this is called “gray” water (i.e., polluted). Via a different mechanism, however, nitrogen compounds in manure also bring about terrestrial biodiversity loss. Microbial degradation of livestock manure results in gaseous ammonia emissions. The prevailing winds rapidly carry the ammonia away, and rainwater precipitates it on soils. Unintentionally, we are fertilizing the whole planet in this manner—including nutrient-poor ecosystems that cannot cope with this influx, such as several types of forest.

128

Environmental nutrition

Because this brings about the destruction of whole ecosystems at once (in contrast to one species at a time by hunting it to extinction), ammonia emissions from livestock operations are among the top three causes of terrestrial biodiversity loss (Townsend and Howarth, 2010). As noted above, certain bacteria chemically transform ammonia (which is basic) to nitrites and nitrates (which are acidic). Several decades ago, we used to have acid rain caused by sulfur in fuels. Today we have acid rain caused by ammonia emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations. So nitrogen fertilizers used to boost food production bring about not only direct biodiversity loss (terrestrial and aquatic), but also ocean acidification (resulting in coral bleaching), further magnifying aquatic biodiversity loss. A problem associated with P-fertilizer is that it derives from crushed rock. The ores invariably contain heavy metals such as cadmium and radioactive elements. After application on the fields, these heavy metals end up in runoff, but as will be shown below, they slowly but steadily accumulate in soils and crops as well.

Soil—Quality issues Soil has long provided the natural matrix and surface structure on which food is collected and produced. But this may change once again, and fully artificial systems such as indoor led-lit hydroponics may even completely take over some day. The role of soil is both to provide a basic matrix and to provide nutrients such as phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, cobalt, and many other elements, which generally derive from weathering rocks. Local cycling of these nutrients is increasingly disrupted by increasing urbanization, which requires crops and livestock products to be transported from rural to metropolitan areas. There they are consumed and the residual nutrients in waste and human excrement increasingly end up in seas and oceans, rather than being recycled to fertilize agricultural soils. Even the nutrients present in sewage sludge are decreasingly used as fertilizer, as a result of hygienic problems, initially with pathogenic organisms, but also with heavy metals as indicated in the previous section. More recently, residues of pharmaceutical drugs (such as the contraceptive pill) and recreational drugs (such as MDMA, also known as Ecstasy) have exacerbated the problem. In summary, local nutrient cycles have basically been turned into oneway streets. Consequently, on the fields many nutrients have to be replenished with artificial fertilizer, containing at least nitrogen, phosphorus, and

Environmental degradation

129

potassium (Malingreau et al., 2012). As indicated above, this leads to accumulation of heavy metals in agricultural soils, which may end up in crops and livestock products as well. In addition, pesticide residues may accumulate in soils and end up in crops. By the same token, antibiotics and other drug residues may end up in livestock products. Furthermore, irrigation water—be it groundwater or surface water— always contains dissolved salts (sometimes even including arsenic), which after evaporation will lead to increased salinity of soils (or toxicity). Near coasts, salinization may be exacerbated by saltwater intrusion. As long ago as 2400 BC, feedback inhibition by irrigation and salinization cycles already resulted in decreased agricultural production in Sumer. Today, similar but stronger forces are in operation at global levels. Irrigation by use of groundwater wells leads to dropping water tables and, subsequently, to increasing desiccation, forest fires, and soil erosion. Excessive fertilizer application also leads to desiccation (Liu et al., 2015). Repeated use of heavy machinery on soils will impact soil structure by compaction (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2007), and this will negatively influence soil life (worms, insects and microorganisms) crucial to soil fertility. Additionally, in particular under dry and dusty conditions, fertile (i.e., nutrient-rich) top soils are increasingly lost not only by wind erosion, but also by flooding and runoff (Haberl et al., 2007). It is estimated that annually 75 billion tons of top soils are lost (Pimentel and Burgess, 2013). Soil structure may be improved with biochar and no-till agriculture. The latter will additionally reduce erosion (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2007). With all of the above mechanisms acting together, it is estimated by the FAO that worldwide, at least 25% of all land is currently degraded. In countries such as China, this may be much higher; in fact, 1.45 million ha of cropland area in China has been lost annually since 2000 (Ye and Van Ranst, 2009).

Biota—Pesticides and microbes Basically, all our food derives from biota, i.e., living organisms (animals, plants, microorganisms). Producing it in increasing amounts therefore results in increasing competition with other biota, both flora and fauna, both directly and indirectly. In order to reduce losses to competitors (such as weeds, rodents, insects, microorganisms, or predators), we employ a number of strategies, many of which include application of chemical agents (Tilman et al., 2002), euphemistically called “crop protection agents” by the agricultural sector. These are intended to kill, sterilize, or otherwise incapacitate

130

Environmental nutrition

certain target organisms that we consider pests. Therefore, these agents are alternatively known as “pesticides” and include insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, but also less well-known types, such as rodenticides, avicides, molluscicides, piscicides, and miticides. As has been documented over a long period of time (Carson, 1962; Gee and Vaz, 2001), these substances may also have severe impacts on non-target organisms (Underwood et al., 2013, p. 42). Due to underestimated bioconcentration and bioaccumulation processes, fish and birds were killed by DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), for example. Even after a ban many decades ago, DDT can still be detected in sediments, animal tissues, and human tissues all over the planet today, and will be for many centuries to come. Similar pesticides were banned, new ones developed, and that cycle seems to be endlessly repetitive, from cholinesterase inhibitors to the neonicotinoids that are currently strongly suspected of killing important pollinators such as bees (Underwood et al., 2013, p. 14). The latter is another example of an unintended impact on biota with a high potential for feedback inhibition of further food production increases. As a result of the finding that adding antibiotics to livestock feed had growth-promoting properties, this was routinely done on an increasing scale. After finding that microbial antibiotics resistance developed rapidly, this prophylactic procedure was abolished only slowly (Gee and Vaz, 2001, p. 99). In spite of the ban, the amount of antibiotics used therapeutically in livestock operations still dwarfs their use in human health care (Aiking, 2014), if only as a result of livestock clearly outnumbering human individuals now. Therefore, resistant bacteria such as MRSA (methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus) and ESBL (extended spectrum β lactamase) result primarily from antibiotics used in intensive livestock production (Price et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2009). Research by the European Medicines Agency showed that in the EU, antibiotics resistance kills c.25,000 people and costs about € 1.5 billion per annum (EMEA, 2009). This scale issue is part of a much bigger picture. Purely as a result of the immense numbers of livestock inhabiting this planet, man has also boosted their associated pathogens and, consequently, the rate of new variants emerging. These include zoonotic strains, which acquired the capability to infect human hosts, even though the wild type had been pathogenic to animal hosts exclusively. Thus, a near-endless string of food scares associated with emerging zoonotic diseases, including BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) infecting cattle and the associated vCJD (Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) infecting humans (Gee and Vaz, 2001, p. 166),

Environmental degradation

131

Q fever, and EHEC (enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli) can be linked to livestock products (World Bank, 2010). Avian, swine, and human influenza viruses exchange genetic material with increasing frequency, in particular in Southeast Asia, where large numbers of birds, pigs, and humans live closely together. Spatially separating poultry farms, pig farms, and urban areas is therefore crucial (Raney et al., 2009, p. 86).

Biota—Genes and biodiversity An issue in its own right is the purposeful introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment, ranging from microbes to prevent strawberries from freezing overnight, via corn that carry Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) genes coding for a bacterial pesticide, to GM fish in aquaculture. Many arguments have been brought forward opposing this practice (Lappe and Bailey, 1999), but which of these arguments will be the most crucial one highly depends on the precise agricultural product and the precise modification under consideration; even then, consensus seems far away. Considering the opposite views held on the precautionary principle held by the EU and the United States (Gaskell et al., 1999), a caseby-case approach seems the most opportune. In general, it may be underestimated how important the scales of volume and time can be. With DDT, for example, the time between environmental introduction and a ban took several decades, and its environmental degradation may take a few centuries. In the words of Evans (1998, p. 143): “Within 30 years of its first use, therefore, the ‘miracle insecticide’ was banished from agriculture in most developed countries because of two of the characteristics which its discoverer had listed as essential in his Nobel lecture: wide range of action and long persistence.” With GMOs, in comparison, relatively little time has passed since their large-scale environmental introduction. Whenever a problem may surface, however, recall will be fundamentally impossible. This is illustrated, for example, by GM salmon. These will not be introduced intentionally into the environment in large numbers, but some are likely to escape their cages, and they may both compete with wild salmon and dilute their gene pool with deleterious effects (Smith et al., 2010). In fact, our overfishing and depletion of fish stocks make aquaculture a prerequisite to future availability of fish. However, with fish we are repeating in the aquatic environment the same mistakes we made with livestock in the terrestrial environment: (a) pollution with reactive nitrogen compounds leading to eutrophication; (b) pollution with antibiotics accelerating

132

Environmental nutrition

microbial resistance; and (c) genetic erosion (Smil, 2000, p. 176), threatening biodiversity, human health, and food production, respectively. With crops, the stakes may be even higher. In the 1840s, a surge of potato blight caused by a fungus-like organism brought famines to Ireland. If something similar were to happen with a GM crop, the anticipated order of magnitude of the impact would be much larger today. As an added complexity, with respect to our staple foods we are increasingly dependent on a rapidly dwindling number of cultured crops and varieties. Due to this genetic erosion (partly caused by increasing scales of mechanized production and consumers’ preoccupation with spotless, unblemished products), the resilience required to counter unforeseen incidents is rapidly dwindling in parallel. Biodiversity is crucial to agriculture as well as to nature ( Johnson et al., 2013). In contrast, on a global level, agricultural demands are literally devouring our rain forests by land-use change. Emissions of reactive nitrogen and pesticides are deleterious to both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. On a local level, both land-use change and emissions lead to increasingly impoverished agricultural biodiversity, and the number of food crops is dwindling. It is high time to rethink the relationships between agriculture, on the one hand, and nature and biodiversity, on the other.

Discussion and conclusions Between 1950 and 2016, the global population almost tripled in size from 2.5 billion to 7.4 billion (PRB, 2016). Moreover, between 1960 and 2015, the world average GDP/capita (a proxy for the standard of living) increased from US$450 to US$10,000 (World Bank, 2016). Both trend increases are likely to continue, and so will urbanization. By 2050, the FAO projects that more than 9 billion people will demand 60%–70% more food than in 2005 (Bruinsma, 2009; Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012), but others argue that during that period, food demand will at least double (Tilman et al., 2011; Tomlinson, 2013). Unfortunately, new arable land is in short supply, and turning even more rain forest into agricultural land is not a good idea due to the inherently associated biodiversity loss and climate change. The same holds for permanent pastures, which should be kept as they are for precisely the same reasons. Annual yield increases are slowing down, however, so demand and production seem to be on a collision course (Ray et al., 2013). Substantially reducing demand by a “reversed” diet transition (Grigg, 1995) back to a

Environmental degradation

133

lower consumption of animal products seems a prerequisite step (Aiking, 2011). Though this will not be easy (de Boer et al., 2014), it nevertheless seems feasible (van Dooren et al., 2015), and it will reduce substantially the mounting pressures on natural resources such as land, water, and energy (Aiking, 2014). As a further step to preserve our resource base, there is the obvious need to reduce and reverse the undesirable environmental degradation caused by the current food system. As outlined in this chapter, the current system both damages the natural ecosystem and inhibits further production increases by feedback mechanisms. Interestingly, the transmission pathway depicted in Fig. 1 strongly resembles the analytical DPSIR (driver-pressure-stateimpact-response) framework (Fig. 2) developed by the European Environment Agency (Kristensen, 2004). In other words, the required social response to reduce the impacts will be to defuse the drivers—all of them, without any exception. At the tactical level, this means that every small step towards reduction of GHG emissions will be welcome. By the same token, excessive fertilizer application should be curbed, finally leading to “precision agriculture.” Soil erosion and compaction can be reduced by replacing heavy farm equipment with lighter equivalents. Waterways can be adapted to reduce runoff. Chemical pesticides can be replaced with biological agents, such as natural enemies of pest organisms. Poultry and pig farms can be spatially separated from one another and from densely populated areas. Antibiotics and GMOs can be reconsidered. However, even all these measures taken together—though inevitable— are likely to yield too little, too late. If we accept the validity of projections that between 2005 and 2050, food demand will increase 60%–110% (Bruinsma, 2009; Tilman et al., 2011; Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; Tomlinson, 2013), our thinking should focus on higher, more strategic levels. How about entirely replacing “conventional” with “organic” agriculture, and buying local food products exclusively? Unfortunately, this is too black and white, because these options each have strong points and weak Societal feedback

Driver

Pressure

State

Impact

Response

Fig. 2 The DPSIR framework from societal driver, via environmental pressure and state, to ecological or human health impact, followed by societal feedback response.

134

Environmental nutrition

points, thus complementing one another. In fact, more than 20 years ago, a well-argued and well-documented book was published, concluding that “conventional” (high-input) and “organic” (low-input) agriculture constituted two extreme approaches of sustainability (WRR, 1995). At any rate, it stands to reason that high-input (conventional) agriculture followed by intercontinental shipping will be environmentally efficient for dry bulk products (such as cereals and soy), but that low-input (organic) local agriculture will be optimal for perishable products with a high water content (such as fruit and vegetables). Indeed, airlifting kiwis across the globe may be economically feasible, but it is certainly not environmentally sustainable by any standard (see Table 1). Then what? Well, less is more! In one way or another, we will need to decelerate biogeochemical cycles, at least including those of nitrogen, carbon, water, and phosphate. The most rapid road to achieve that is by reducing overconsumption of protein and calories, which largely go hand in hand (You and Henneberg, 2016). Neither governments, industries, nor consumers may like it (few do), but there will be numerous advantages. It will benefit biodiversity, climate, equity, hunger, and animal welfare, to name a few. Moreover, human health will benefit, not just by reducing obesity and associated diseases (such as diabetes and circulatory diseases) plus certain cancers related to food consumption (McMichael et al., 2007), but also antibiotics resistance and emerging diseases related to food production (Aiking, 2014), and consumers are more susceptible to health incentives than to sustainability incentives (de Boer et al., 2013). Besides, if we do not reduce our food consumption voluntarily, this reduction will occur due to inevitable food price increases (de Boer and van Bergen, 2012; Porter et al., 2014), hurting the poor and further increasing conflict and migration (Foresight, 2011; Natalini et al., 2015). Possibly never before in history have carrot and stick tended to cooperate to this extent and in such harmony. Most of all, however, a voluntary reduction of food consumption will buy us time (Roberts et al., 2013; Aiking, 2014) to accelerate the only cycle that is lagging behind: the (international) policy cycle.

References Aiking, H., 1977. Involvement of Potassium in the Physiology of Candida utilis: A Continuous Culture Study. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands PhD thesis.

Environmental degradation

135

Aiking, H., 2009. Tasty or sustainable food: a dilemma all trussed up. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (1), 151–154. Aiking, H., 2011. Future protein supply. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22 (2–3), 112–120. Aiking, H., 2014. Protein production: planet, profit, plus people? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Suppl), 483S–489S. Aiking, H., Govers, H.A.J., Keulen, R.W., Hermens, P.A.H., Jeltes, R., 1989. A general approach to environmental health impact assessment in The Netherlands. In: Hemphill, D.D. (Ed.), Trace Substances in Environmental Health—XXII. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, pp. 98–108. Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/50: the 2012 revision. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. Available from: http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/ wsfs-background-documents/wsfs-expert-papers/en/ Accessed 17 December 2012FAO, Rome, Italy. Bennetzen, E.H., Smith, P., Porter, J.R., 2016. Agricultural production and greenhouse gas emissions from world regions—the major trends over 40 years. Glob. Environ. Chang. 37, 43–55. Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., 2007. Soil and crop response to harvesting corn residues for biofuel production. Geoderma 141 (3–4), 355–362. Bruinsma, J., 2009. The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050? Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050 (12–13 October 2009). Available from: http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfsbackground-documents/wsfs-expert-papers/en/ Accessed 23 September 2009FAO, Rome, Italy. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Gonzalez, A.D., 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (Suppl), 1704S–1709S. Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Miflin Company, Boston. Carstensen, J., Andersen, J.H., Gustafsson, B.G., Conley, D.J., 2014. Deoxygenation of the Baltic Sea during the last century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (15), 5628–5633. de Boer,Y., van Bergen, B., 2012. Expect the unexpected: building business value in a changing world. KPMG, Amstelveen, The Netherlands. Available from: http://www.kpmg. com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/buildingbusiness-value.pdf (Accessed 8 November 2012). de Boer, J., Wardekker, J.A., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2010. Frame-based guide to situated decision-making on climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 20 (3), 502–510. de Boer, J., Sch€ osler, H., Boersema, J.J., 2013. Climate change and meat eating: an inconvenient couple? J. Environ. Psychol. 33, 1–8. de Boer, J., Sch€ osler, H., Aiking, H., 2014. “Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 76, 120–128. de Boer, J., de Witt, A., Aiking, H., 2016. Help the climate, change your diet: a crosssectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society. Appetite 98, 19–27. Diamond, J., 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. ISBN 0-39331755-2 W.W. Norton, New York. EMEA, 2009. The bacterial challenge: time to react—a call to narrow the gap between multidrug-resistant bacteria in the EU and the development of new antibacterial agents. Report EMEA/576176/2009 European Medicines Agency, Stockholm, Sweden. Erisman, J.W., Sutton, M.A., Galloway, J.N., Klimont, Z., Winiwarter, W., 2008. How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nat. Geosci. 1 (10), 636–639. Erisman, J.W., Leach, A.M., Bleeker, A., Atwell, B., Cattaneo, L., Galloway, J.N., 2015. A Proposal for an Integrated Approach to a Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) Indicator

136

Environmental nutrition

for the Food Production-Consumption Chain. Louis Bolk Institute, Driebergen, The Netherlands. Evans, L.T., 1998. Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth. ISBN 0-52164081-4 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Foresight, 2011. The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. The Government Office for Science, London. Frieden, E., 1972. The chemical elements of life. Sci. Am. 227, 52–60. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., Allum, N.C., 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285, 384–387. Gee, D., Vaz, S.F., 2001. Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. ISBN 9291673234 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Goodland, R., Anhang, J., 2009. Livestock and climate change. World Watch Magazine 22 (6), 10–19. Grigg, D., 1995. The nutritional transition in Western Europe. J. Hist. Geogr. 21, 247–261. Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (31), 12942–12947. Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., Johansson, D.J.A., 2014. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim. Chang. 124, 79–91. Johnson, J., McCabe, J., White, D., Johnston, B., Kuskowski, M., McDermott, P., 2009. Molecular analysis of Escherichia coli from retail meats (2002–2004) from the United States National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. Clin. Infect. Dis. 49 (2), 195–201. Johnson, P.T.J., Preston, D.L., Hoverman, J.T., Richgels, K.L.D., 2013. Biodiversity decreases disease through predictable changes in host community competence. Nature 494 (7436), 230–233. Kristensen, P. (2004). The DPSIR Framework—Paper presented at the 27–29 September 2004 workshop on a comprehensive/detailed assessment of the vulnerability of water resources to environmental change in Africa using river basin approach. Available from: http://wwz.ifremer.fr/dce/content/download/69291/913220/file/DPSIR.pdf (Accessed 15 September 2016). Nairobi, Kenia: UNEP. Lang, T., Barling, D., Caraher, M., 2009. Food Policy: Integrating Health, Environment & Society. ISBN 978-0-19-856788-2 Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lappe, M., Bailey, B., 1999. Against the Grain: The Genetic Transformation of Global Agriculture. ISBN 1-85383-657-5 Earthscan, London. Liu, X.J., Zhang, Y., Han, W., Tang, A., Shen, J., Cui, Z., Vitousek, P., Erisman, J.W., Goulding, K., Christie, P., Fangmeier, A., Zhang, F.S., 2013. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature 494, 459–462. Liu, Y., Pan, Z., Zhuang, Q., Miralles, D.G., Teuling, A.J., Zhang, T., An, P., Dong, Z., Zhang, J., He, D., Wang, L., Pan, X., Bai, W., Niyogi, D., 2015. Agriculture intensifies soil moisture decline in Northern China. Sci. Rep. 5(11261), 5. Malingreau, J.P., Eva, H., Maggio, A., 2012. NPK: Will there be enough plant nutrients to feed a world of 9 billion in 2050? Report JRC70936, EUR 25327 EN. ISBN 978-9279-24910-5 (pdf ) Joint Research Centre, Brussels, Belgium. McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C.D., Uauy, R., 2007. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet 370 (9594), 1253–1263. Natalini, D., Jones, A.W., Bravo, G., 2015. Quantitative assessment of political fragility indices and food prices as indicators of food riots in countries. Sustainability 7, 4360–4385.

Environmental degradation

137

Pimentel, D., Burgess, M., 2013. Soil erosion threatens food production. Agriculture 3 (3), 443–463. Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.B., Travasso, M.I., 2014. Food security and food production systems. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge & New York, pp. 485–533. PRB (2016). 2016 World Population Data Sheet—With a Special Focus on Human Needs and Sustainable Resources. Available from: http://www.prb.org/pdf16/prb-wpds2016web-2016.pdf (Accessed 16 September 2016). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Price, L.B., Stegger, M., Hasman, H., Aziz, M., Larsen, J., Andersen, P.S., Pearson, T., Waters, A.E., Foster, J.T., Schupp, J., Gillece, J., Driebe, E., Liu, C.M., Springer, B., Zdovc, I., Battisti, A., Franco, A., Zmudzki, J., Schwarz, S., Butaye, P., Jouy, E., Pomba, C., Porrero, M.C., Ruimy, R., Smith, T.C., Robinson, D.A., Weese, J.S., Arriola, C.S., Yu, F., Laurent, F., Keim, P., Skov, R., Aarestrup, F.M., 2012. Staphylococcus aureus CC398: host adaptation and emergence of methicillin resistance in livestock. mBio 3 (1), e00305-11. Raney, T., Gerosa, S., Khwaja, Y., Skoet, J., Steinfeld, H., McLeod, A., Opio, C., Cluff, M., 2009. The State of Food and Agriculture 2009: Livestock in the Balance. ISBN 978-925-106215-9 FAO, Rome, Italy. Ranganathan, J., Vennard, D., Waite, R., Dumas, P., Lipinski, B. & Searchinger, T. (2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. Installment 11 of “Creating a Sustainable Food Future”. Available from: http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Shifting_Diets_for_ a_Sustainable_Food_Future_0.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2017). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Ray, D.K., Mueller, N.D., West, P.C., Foley, J.A., 2013. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS One 8(6), e66428. Roberts, S., Crossley, D. & Barling, L. (2013). Beyond business as usual—towards a sustainable food system. Available from: http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/system/files/ BBAU%20FINAL%20web%20version_0.pdf (Accessed 5 February 2013). ISBN 9780-9549218-8-0. Brighton: Food Ethics Council. Rockstr€ om, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (7263), 472–475. Smil, V., 2000. Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century. ISBN 0-26219432-5 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Smil, V., 2001. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. ISBN 0-262-19449-X MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Smith, M.D., Asche, F., Guttormsen, A.G., Wiener, J.B., 2010. Genetically modified salmon and full impact assessment. Science 330, 1052–1053. Soret, S., Mejia, A., Batech, M., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Harwatt, H., Sabate, J., 2014. Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Suppl. 1), 490S–495S.

138

Environmental nutrition

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P.J., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., De Haan, C., 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. ISBN 978-92-5-105571-7 FAO, Rome, Italy. Sutton, M.A., Howard, C.M., Erisman, J.W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., Grennfelt, P., van Grinsven, H.J.M., Grizetti, B., 2011. The European Nitrogen Assessment—Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R.L., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108 (50), 20260–20264. Tomlinson, I., 2013. Doubling food production to feed the 9 billion: a critical perspective on a key discourse of food security in the UK. J. Rural. Stud. 29, 81–90. Townsend, A.R., Howarth, R.W., 2010. Fixing the global nitrogen problem. Sci. Am. 302 (2), 64–71. Underwood, E., Baldock, D., Aiking, H., Buckwell, A., Dooley, E., Frelih-Larsen, A., Naumann, S., O’Connor, C., Polakova, J. & Tucker, G. (2013). Options for sustainable food and agriculture in the EU. Synthesis report of the STOA Project “Technology Options for Feeding 10 Billion People”, Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513539/IPOL-JOIN_ET(2013)513539_EN.pdf (Accessed 11 August 2016). Brussels, Belgium: STOA (Science and Technology Options Assessment), European Parliament. van Dooren, C., Tyszler, M., Kramer, G.F.H., Aiking, H., 2015. Combining low price, low climate impact and high nutritional value in one shopping basket through diet optimization by linear programming. Sustainability 7, 12837–12855. van Dooren, C., Douma, A., Aiking, H., Vellinga, P., 2017. Proposing a novel index reflecting both climate impact and nutritional impact of food products. Ecol. Econ. 131, 389–398. Vanham, D., Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2013. The water footprint of the EU for different diets. Ecol. Indic. 32, 1–8. Wang, L., Xue, B., Yan, T., 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and poultry production sectors in China from 1960 to 2010. J. Integr. Agric. 15, 60345-7. Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S., 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (10), 3508–3513. Wellesley, L., Happer, C., Froggatt, A., 2015. Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption. Chatham House, London. World Bank, 2010. People, Pathogens and Our Planet, Volume 1: Towards a One Health Approach for Controlling Zoonotic Diseases. Report No. 50833-GLB World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (2016). GDP per capita (current US$). Available from: http://data.worldbank. org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (Accessed 15 September 2016). Washington, DC: World Bank. WRR, 1995. World food supply. In: Sustained Risks: A Lasting Phenomenon. Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 51–71. Ye, L., Van Ranst, E., 2009. Production scenarios and the effect of soil degradation on longterm food security in China. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19 (4), 464–481. You, W., Henneberg, M., 2016. Meat in modern diet, just as bad as sugar, correlates with worldwide obesity: an ecological analysis. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 6 (4), 1–10.

CHAPTER 8

Environmental nutrition and LCA Nathan Pelletier, Robert Parker, Patrik Henriksson

As the scale and scope of industrial activities have continued to grow, we find ourselves, with increasing frequency, running up against the limited capacity of the ecosystems that support our activities—whether at local, regional, or global scales—to provide the resources that we require and to assimilate the associated waste streams that are created. The concepts of sustainability and of sustainable development have emerged largely in response to this phenomenon. We are increasingly cognizant that food system activities, taken together, contribute a large fraction of the overall resource demands and environmental pressures that we collectively bring to bear (Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2010; Foley et al., 2011). Food production activities occupy 35%–40% of terrestrial surface area (FAO, 2013) and contribute roughly 70% of our freshwater footprint ( J€agerskog and Clausen, 2012). The share of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions attributable to food production activities is close to 30% (Vermeulen et al., 2012), and agri-food production contributes the majority of reactive nitrogen emissions (Bodirsky et al., 2014). Current patterns of food production and consumption also support the incongruous coexistence of malnutrition and obesity, both within and between countries. Taken together, these trends strongly suggest that sustainability considerations must be at the center of how we think about and seek to manage food systems, across geographical and temporal scales, and that these considerations must balance what will often be interconnected nutrition, health, environmental quality, and sustainability objectives. Life cycle thinking (LCT) is at the center of sustainability science and, increasingly, of evidence-based policy and management (Sala et al., 2013). LCT, in essence, refers to adopting a systems-level perspective on industrial activities, and in the case that concerns us, the food industry. This perspective seeks to understand the causes and consequences of industrial activities predicated on the recognition that such activities are embedded

Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00009-6

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

141

142

Environmental nutrition

in complex networks of supply chain relationships. These supply chain activities mobilize resources from diverse locales that are, in turn, ultimately dissipated back into the environment in diverse forms distributed across time and space. Seeking to understand and influence this entire network of relationships is essential to effective sustainability management—not only to recognize what are the most important opportunities for leveraging more sustainable outcomes (for example, through improving resource efficiencies or reducing emissions) but, importantly, to support identification and management of potential trade-offs (Pelletier, 2015). Indeed, the recognition and accommodation of such trade-offs, which may manifest with relation to specific activity variables distributed across supply chains or across the myriad potential dimensions of sustainability for which we may seek to manage, are at the very center of life cycle thinking and management. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) is a standardized methodological framework for operationalizing LCT in the science and practice of sustainability measurement and management (ISO, 2006). This framework provides the necessary basis for systematically inventorying the material and energy resource inputs, outputs, and emissions characteristic of supply chain activities and, subsequently, applying a variety of impact assessment methods to quantify the extent to which these flows contribute to a range of important environmental, resource, and human health impacts (for an example, see Fig. 1). On this basis, LCA enables robust evaluation and comparison of product systems, production technologies, and also potential management interventions, taking into account the entirety of supply chain activities considered. In short, LCT and LCA provide us with an analytical perspective and tool that are well-suited to supporting effective, science-based sustainability measurement and management. LCA has been applied to study a wide variety of food systems. Together, these studies have helped to define, in broad strokes, the distribution of resource use and emissions attributable to contemporary food systems (for reviews of such studies, see Roy et al., 2009; Pelletier et al., 2011; Pelletier, 2015; Notarnicola et al., 2017). Some general observations emerge. For example, resource and emissions-related impacts associated with field crop production are largely linked to variables such as the production and use of fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels for farm machinery. For most livestock products, in contrast, the largest share of impacts are often observed “upstream” of the farm along the feed input supply chains that support animal production. Typically, distribution and processing of both crop and livestock products tend to be of minor importance in terms of life cycle resource use and

Environmental nutrition and LCA

143

Fig. 1 Example of a product life cycle for a meat product, including upstream production of livestock feed.

emissions (although exceptions do arise). However, transportation of food from the point of retail sale to home, food preparation, and food waste can all figure large in total supply chain burdens. At the product category level, animal products are often considerably more resource and emissions-intensive to produce compared to plant-based food products, largely reflecting the inefficiencies inherent to biological feed conversion, which serve to multiply the supply chain impacts of feed input production (Pelletier et al., 2011). However, it is important to note that there is a considerable range in the impacts attributable to different food products, both within and between food product categories. For this reason, rules of thumb must be employed with caution as notable exceptions may be observed (Pelletier, 2015). Despite the currency of the “food miles” concept, life cycle-based research has shown that transportation actually typically contributes a small share to the environmental footprint of most contemporary food products (Weber and Mathews, 2008). The majority of food commodities are transported by containerized ocean, rail or truck freight modes, which are quite efficient means of moving food products in bulk. In contrast, however, many of the life cycle impacts for air-freighted food products will likely be dominated by the distribution stage.

144

Environmental nutrition

In recent years, an increasing number of LCA researchers have underscored the importance of relationships between nutrition, environmental health, and sustainability (e.g., see Heller et al., 2013; Sonesson et al., 2017). These researchers have contributed new considerations, methods, and applications for the use of LCA to enhance our understanding of issues at this nexus. This chapter describes recent contributions to the LCA literature in this regard. The organization of the analysis follows the ISO 14044 (2006) description of the distinct methodological stages of LCA studies— specifically, the goal and scope definition stage, the life cycle inventory (LCI) stage, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) stage, and the interpretation stage. It concludes with a summary of key insights and future research directions.

Goal and scope The goal and scope definition stage of an LCA study sets the context for and describes the overarching purpose of the study, and also defines and justifies key methodological decisions and assumptions for the analysis. Ideally, such decisions and assumptions should be consistent with the stated aims of the study (i.e., with respect to the specific questions to be answered, along with the intended audience). These may include, for example, informing consumers and consumer interest groups; providing information to industry managers; supporting eco-labels and environmental declarations; assessing potential effects of different government policies; or evaluating new technologies. For studies addressing relationships between nutrition, environmental health, and sustainability, several methodological aspects of the goal and scope stage demand careful consideration. In particular, attention to how functional units, system boundaries (including cut-off criteria), and allocation principles are defined is required.

Functional unit The functional unit is the unit of reference in an LCA study. According to the International Life Cycle Data System Handbook (ILCD) (European Commission, 2012), the functional unit should describe a product’s attributes in terms of “what, how much, how well, and for how long.” The purpose of a clearly defined functional unit is to ensure that the study results are expressed in terms of a relevant unit of analysis, and also to ensure accurate

Environmental nutrition and LCA

145

comparisons between functionally similar products. The functional unit definition should also be chosen with respect to the specific goals of the study. In food LCA studies it is common to simply use a specified mass unit as the functional unit for describing the impacts of producing a given food commodity. However, mass-based descriptions are not particularly useful when comparisons are to be made between different food products (Sonesson et al., 2017). For example, in comparing the environmental impacts of consumption of beef and beans as alternative means to fulfill dietary protein intake requirements, a simple mass-based comparison would obscure the fact that these products contain both different amounts and qualities of protein. Moreover, comparing food items on a mass basis adds additional discrepancies through the varying moisture content of different food items (e.g., a kg of cucumber and a kg of pasta). Here, more nuanced measures such as the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) or Dietary Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) would be necessary in order to ensure an accurate comparison. As described by Heller et al. (2013), if we accept the premise that providing nutrition is the primary function of food products, a structured basis for linking the environmental impacts of food products or dietary patterns with the nutritional function that they provide is clearly generally desirable. Strategies for doing so could include, for example, use of diet quality indices, nutrient profiling, or information derived from epidemiological studies. Several authors have, in fact, explored opportunities for the use of more nutritionally relevant functional units in life cycle assessment. For example, based on a review of functional units for food LCA studies, Schau and Fet (2008) recommended use of a quality-corrected functional unit that reflects the nutritional value and characteristics of the food product considered. This approach has been widespread in recent LCA studies of milk production. Others have proposed use of nutritional density as a proxy for the large number of potentially considered nutrients and nutrient content levels in food products (Smedman et al., 2010; Drewnowski et al., 2015). Some authors have focused on appropriate functional units for making comparisons at the diet rather than product level (Bruun Werner et al., 2014; Roos et al., 2015). More recently, Sonesson et al. (2017) propose protein quality as a basis for functional unit definition in food LCA studies, based on consideration of the amount and ratios of essential amino acids found in specific food products and also taking into account dietary context. They underscore the importance of dietary context, since overconsumption of some nutrients can be harmful or simply does not provide additional benefits (which is important from the

146

Environmental nutrition

perspective of overconsumption vis-a`-vis sustainability impacts). In general, these methodological proposals recognize that nutrition is the primary (although not exclusive) function of food products, and that assessing the sustainability of particular food products, diets, or consumption levels must take into account both the nutritional value of specific food products and their relative contributions to fulfilling specific nutritional objectives.

System boundaries The establishment of system boundaries for an analysis refers to identifying and justifying which aspects of the product life cycle are to be included in a life cycle assessment study (ISO, 2006). Since specific activities and their associated resource use and emission profiles will be of variable importance to the spectrum of potential impact indicators that might be considered in a study, system boundary decisions should, at least in part, be informed by the particular suite of sustainability impacts that are of interest. For studies focusing on potential interactions between nutritional considerations and sustainability impacts (including human health), it will be important to ensure that the system boundaries are established such that all life cycle activities having bearing on one or more of these concerns are included. For example, inclusion of even small inputs of certain pesticides applied in crop agriculture may be unimportant from the perspective of resource use or greenhouse gas emissions, but essential to include for assessment of potential human and ecosystem toxicity impacts. Here, the concept of cut-off criteria in LCA, which refers to established thresholds for exclusion of flows of marginal importance, is particularly significant.

Life cycle inventory Central to robust LCA research and associated sustainability management initiatives is the availability of high quality life cycle inventory data. Such data characterize the material and energy inputs and emissions attributable to the supply chain activities that support provision of a given good or service. These data enable assessment of the distribution of resource use and emissions along supply chains in an additive manner using formalized impact assessment methodologies (Ford et al., 2012). The life cycle inventory stage of LCA refers to compilation of these data for activities that fall within the defined system boundary for the analysis, and the construction of a life cycle inventory model that links these flows in a representative manner. Fig. 2 provides an example of inventory flows linked to the processing stage of a food product, including “upstream” and “downstream” flows.

Environmental nutrition and LCA

147

Renewable generation

Electricity

Mining of fossil fuels

Nonrenewable generation

Packaging materials

Recycling

Refining of fossil fuels

Electricity transmission

Food additives

Landfill management

Transport of fossil fuels

Chemicals and cleaners

Combustion

Water

Upstream

Wastewater treatment

Downstream

Fig. 2 Example processes included in the inventory of a food life cycle assessment, showing potential activities associated with the food processing stage. Direct (foreground) inputs to the processing plant are unshaded, while shaded activities are upstream and downstream (background) processes associated with different inputs.

Life cycle inventory databases provide valuable resources for researchers undertaking to model specific supply chain activities, as the availability of “background system” data for processes that are common across many supply chains obviates the need for every researcher to create full supply chain models from scratch. A variety of public and commercial life cycle inventory databases have become available in recent years. These may be regional, national, or global in scope, and either general or focused on specific sectors. For example, the European Commission’s European Life Cycle Database (ELCD 2016) (European Commission, 2016) provides a repository for data specific to major industrial sectors in Europe, with baseline data format and quality requirements. In the United States, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory houses a life cycle inventory database for US energy sector data (NREL, 2012), and the National Agricultural Library Digital Commons has begun hosting life cycle inventory data sets that characterize activities in major US food sectors (USDA, 2016). National life cycle inventory projects are similarly underway in Japan, China, Australia, Chile, and many other countries. At the global level, the International Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) (European Commission, 2012) provides guidelines to promote data sharing and consistency between life cycle inventory database initiatives so as to ensure their interoperability. The ELCD and ILCD are already playing

148

Environmental nutrition

important roles in European Commission policy and regulatory initiatives, including food sector applications employing the EC Product Environmental Footprint methods (Manfredi et al., 2015). Data quality and uncertainty management for life cycle inventory modeling and impact assessment is a rapidly evolving research area (Henriksson et al., 2015). It is generally recognized that poor quality data and inconsistent data uncertainty reporting for life cycle inventories greatly undermine the predictive power and decision support potential of life cycle models. Broad consensus as to best practices in the field, however, has not yet coalesced. For studies investigating relationships between nutrition, health, and sustainability, high quality food system life cycle inventory data will be particularly important. One obvious priority for high quality LCI data in food LCA studies might be improved resolution and accuracy with respect to the specific kinds, amounts, and fates of crop production products that are applied (i.e., herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides) in field crop production and horticulture. Unfortunately, high-resolution inventory data regarding the usage of these products are often unavailable.

Allocation Many food production systems produce more than one product, and some produce both food and nonfood products. For example, beef production provides not only meat but also food- and feed-grade coproducts. It also provides hides for the clothing industry, bones and tissues for gelatin production, and tallow for soap. In these cases, dividing inventory flows—and ultimately environmental impacts—between coproducts can be challenging. Allocation refers to a common strategy for partitioning life cycle inventory flows between the coproducts of multioutput systems in life cycle assessment. For example, in processing soybeans into soymeal and oil, allocation would be performed in order to apportion input flows between the two coproduct outputs. The ISO 14044 standard for LCA describes a decision hierarchy which prioritizes avoiding allocation or, if it cannot be avoided, resolving multifunctionality problems in ways that reflect underlying physical relationships between the inventory flows and coproduct outputs. Indeed, since the purpose of LCA is to describe the inventory of biophysical resource flows and emissions attributable to product lifecycles, along with the attendant potential impacts, maintaining these relationships through implementation of appropriate allocation strategies is clearly imperative (Pelletier et al., 2015). Despite this, it is very common for LCA

Environmental nutrition and LCA

149

practitioners to use the relative economic value of coproducts as the basis for allocation on the premise that the assignment of burdens should “fairly” reflect the motivation for existence of the production system, which is taken to be the generation of monetary value. This assumption that the results of a biophysical model should reflect preconceived notions of fairness is, indeed, quite odd and seemingly incompatible with accepted standards of scientific rigor elsewhere. As a result, many LCA studies, including of food products, report results of questionable utility (Pelletier et al., 2015). This consideration is clearly of relevance for LCA research aiming to investigate the relationships between nutrition, environmental health, and sustainability. Imagine, for example, an LCA study examining the relationships between the nutritional value of a serving of meat compared to a serving of beans (with the functional unit of comparison based on protein quality) in terms of resource use, emissions, and both environmental and human health outcomes. Imagine also that the meat is derived from an animal that has been fed only a coproduct of very limited economic value—in this case, a coproduct from processing the very same kind of beans considered in the current comparison into a high value oil product, and a low-value bean meal used as livestock feed. Imagine now that the impacts of producing the meat are largely a function of the impacts associated with producing the feed inputs (which is largely the case for poultry and pork production). Here, in light of the very small share of impacts from bean production allocated to the bean meal used as livestock feed, we might conceivably arrive at a study result that suggests that the resource and environmental impacts of producing the meat are less than that of producing the beans. This could hold true despite that a much larger amount of the beans were required to produce the meat than is represented in the beans considered in the comparison. Such an analysis might support conclusions to the effect that it is environmentally preferable to consume the meat product rather than a nutritionally equivalent amount of the bean product. The environmental health ramifications of food policies based on such advice would likely be distinctly unfavorable. Although most examples are, in practice, less extreme the same biophysical absurdity applies when economic allocation is used in life cycle inventory models. In recent years, several authors have, however, proposed detailed and viable biophysical allocation strategies for food product life cycle inventories (Brankatschk and Finkbeiner, 2014). For example, van der Werf and Nguyen (2015) propose an allocation strategy for crop processing based on the share of biological energy devoted by the crop to the production of the respective processing coproducts and Chen et al. (2017) proposed a similar approach for livestock coproducts.

150

Environmental nutrition

Life cycle impact assessment During the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase of LCA, impact assessment methods are used to quantify the extent to which the activities represented by the life cycle inventory model contribute to specific resource, environmental, and/or human health impacts. A wide variety of LCIA methods are available for use by LCA practitioners. For example, impact assessment categories speaking directly to human health concerns include human toxicity, particulate matter/respiratory inorganics, and ionizing radiation. Both life cycle inventory modeling and life cycle impact assessment can be supported by use of dedicated software platforms. Leading software platforms include SimaPro, Gabi, and openLCA. These programs allow practitioners to quickly access relevant data from large and diverse inventory databases, construct and adapt life cycle models, and apply characterization factors to quantify environmental impacts. Fig. 3 provides an example of the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions, quantified using LCA, across the life cycle of an illustrative subset of fisheries and aquaculture products. Life cycle impact assessment results may be expressed using either midpoint or end-point category indicators. Midpoint category indicators aggregate and express inventory data that contribute to a specific sustainability indicator using a common reference species that reflects potential impacts rather than a measure of actual anticipated damages. For example, inventory flows that contribute to radiative forcing (i.e., driving potential climate change) are expressed in CO2-equivalent units. End-point category indicators aggregate and express inventory data at the anticipated damage level. End-point category indicators add an additional level of uncertainty to life cycle impact assessment results. They do, however, have the advantage of being amenable to aggregation across impact categories— meaning that multiple impact categories may be expressed on a common basis. Disability adjusted life years (DALY) is the most commonly used endpoint category indicator in life cycle assessment. Here, impacts across multiple sustainability domains can be expressed in terms of the extent to which the impacts are projected to result in increased human morbidity and mortality. As pointed out by several authors, usage of the DALY metric in both epidemiological studies and life cycle impact assessment provides the necessary basis for considering nutrition, health, and environmental impacts on a common basis (Heller et al., 2013; Stylianou et al., 2016). This common

Environmental nutrition and LCA

151

Contribution to overall emissions

100 % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cod

Canned tuna

Canned sardines

Fresh lobster

Farmed salmon

Farmed shrimp

Fishing inputs

Farming inputs

Feed production

Processing

Packaging

Transport

Fig. 3 Relative contribution of different processes to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with a range of seafood products. Adapted from the studies of frozen Atlantic cod (Ziegler et al., 2003), canned skipjack and yellowfin tuna (Hospido et al., 2006; Parker et al., 2015), canned European sardines (Almeida et al., 2015), Australian tropical rock lobster flown live to Hong Kong (van Putten et al., 2015), farmed Atlantic salmon (Pelletier et al., 2009; Parker, 2018), and white-leg shrimp farmed in China and shipped to United States (Cao et al., 2011).

basis allows for presentation and integrated consideration of potential synergies and trade-offs. Beyond direct effects, this approach can also accommodate assessment of second-order effects related to resource flows and emissions associated with food systems which alter environmental quality to the detriment of human health outcomes. Such evaluations might focus at the product level (e.g., increased consumption or substitution of a particular food item), dietary level (nutritional and sustainability profiles of status quo or recommended consumption patterns), or even to assess potential aggregate effects at the population level. Going one step further, in light of on-going methodological development efforts with respect to relating life cycle impact assessment results to sustainability boundaries at appropriate geographical and temporal scales (e.g., see Pelletier et al., 2014; Bjorn et al., 2015), it will become increasingly feasible to study the macroscale, coupled diet/nutrition/sustainability linkages associated with projected patterns of production and consumption globally, as well as those associated with alternative global food policy trajectories.

152

Environmental nutrition

One clear weakness, however, is the high level of uncertainty associated with characterization factors for potential human and ecosystem health impacts in current life cycle impact assessment methodologies. For example, pesticide fate and human exposure pathways may be highly variable and context-specific. This is compounded by the lack of temporal considerations in LCAs, and lack of attention to the carrying capacities of specific ecosystems. On-going research, in particular with respect to spatially and temporally resolved life cycle impact assessment modeling, will be necessary to bring increasing rigor to such assessments.

Interpretation The interpretation phase of LCA involves systematic evaluation of the life cycle impact assessment results in light of the study goals, objectives, and key questions. Studies aiming to link nutrition, health, and environmental sustainability outcomes will therefore evaluate study results on this basis. In LCA research using midpoint category indicators, one necessary focus of the interpretation phase is identifying potential trade-offs between different environmental impact indicators. For example, in comparing two products providing a similar function, one may evince a smaller carbon footprint but a larger water footprint compared to the other product. Decisions made on the basis of this interpretation must then reflect a principled prioritization of sustainability issues. Normalization is sometimes used in LCA in order to contextualize the relative importance of specific indicator results. This process assesses the contribution of a product to a given impact relative to the contributions of all products and activities in a given locality, region, or globally, in order to identify those impacts to which the product contributes most heavily. Weighting schemes may also be used to aggregate and compare results but, since weighting is a subjective exercise requiring contextspecific articulation of priorities, broad consensus methods for weighting have not been developed. The use of end-point category indicators such as DALY simplifies interpretation because indicator results are already expressed on a common basis. In this case, it is relatively straightforward to observe the extent to which the evaluated systems contribute to human health impacts through multiple pathways. When epidemiological data, also expressed using DALY, are presented in parallel, then observing potential synergies and trade-offs also becomes relatively straightforward. Stylianou et al. (2016) provide an example of such an approach, which they call a Combined Nutritional and

Environmental nutrition and LCA

153

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (CONE-LCA). Here, the authors demonstrate their framework through evaluating and comparing the health and environmental effects of adding a serving of milk to the average US diet. In general, LCA results are appealing to decision makers as they commonly provide quantitative point-value benchmarks across a range of environmental impact categories. It is hence tempting to draw conclusions within and between studies without attention to uncertainty and associated confidence levels. In reality, LCA results are strongly influenced by modeling choices, uncertainty (unknown or imprecise data), and variability (inconsistent data). With respect to the former consideration, limited consensus exists for many modeling choices in LCA, despite numerous efforts and initiatives to harmonize methodologies. These include, for example, choices regarding background databases, software, system boundaries, allocation methods, emission models used, and a variety of other assumptions. If accounted for in both the LCI and the life cycle impact assessment stages, uncertainty and variability can easily result in a confidence interval of an order of magnitude for food products (Henriksson et al., 2015). This may be exacerbated where impact categories with high levels of characterization factor uncertainty are considered (e.g., freshwater ecotoxicology) or if endpoint indicators are used. For this reason, it is generally inadvisable to compare LCA results across studies, and influential modeling choices should be tested using sensitivity analyses (ISO 14044). Some methodological choices can also be treated as sources of uncertainty to illustrate their influence on results (Mendoza Beltran et al., 2016). Rigorous inclusion of uncertainty parameters is therefore essential for ensuring the robustness of food LCA results. Only after important sources of dispersion in data have been accounted for can levels of confidence be associated with study conclusions (Henriksson et al., 2013).

Conclusions Life cycle thinking in general and life cycle assessment in particular provide a useful, structured basis for investigating relationships between nutrition, human health, environmental quality, and sustainability impacts. In recent years, on-going methodological development has improved the basis for such analyses. In particular, this includes: careful definition of the functional unit of LCA studies focused on nutritionally relevant parameters; improved understanding of appropriate system boundaries—in particular, the inclusion of flows relevant to human health outcomes; evolving life cycle impact

154

Environmental nutrition

assessment methods for quantifying human health impacts; and the use of disability adjusted life years as a common basis for comparing human health, resource, and environmental outcomes. However, there remain several distinct challenges, such as questionable allocation strategies employed in the construction of life cycle inventory models; limited availability of high quality life cycle inventory data for agri-food system activities, along with common protocols for data quality and data uncertainty management; and insufficient resolution regarding fate pathways for agri-chemicals along with causal mechanisms linking inventory flows to human health outcomes at spatially and temporally resolved scales. As methods and approaches continue to evolve, the efficacy of life cycle assessment in decision support contexts related to managing agri-food system activities, food policy, and public health will continue to improve.

References Almeida, C., Vaz, S., Ziegler, F., 2015. Environmental life cycle assessment of a canned sardine product from Portugal. J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (4), 607–617. Bjorn, A., Diamond, M., Owsianiak, M., Verzat, B., Hauschild, M., 2015. Strengthening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (11), 6370–6371. Bodirsky, B., Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Dietrich, J., Rolinksi, S., Weindl, I., Schmitz, C., Muller, C., Bonsch, M., Humpenoder, F., Biewald, A., Stevanonic, M., 2014. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Commun. 5, 3858. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4858. Brankatschk, G., Finkbeiner, M., 2014. Application of the Cereal Unit in a new allocation procedure for agricultural life cycle assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 72–79. Bruun Werner, L., Flysjo, A., Tholstrup, T., 2014. Greenhouse gas emissions of realistic dietary choices in Denmark: the carbon footprint and nutritional value of dairy products. Food Nutr. Res. 58, 1–16. Cao, L., Diana, J.S., Keoleian, G.A., Lai, Q., 2011. Life cycle assessment of Chinese shrimp farming systems targeted for export and domestic sales. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (15), 6531–6538. Chen, X., Wilfart, A., Puillet, L., Aubin, J., 2017. A new method of biophysical allocation in LCA of livestock co-products: modeling metabolic energy requirements of body-tissue growth. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 883–895. Drewnowski, A., Rehm, C., Martin, A., Verger, E., Voinnesson, M., Imbert, P., 2015. Energy and nutrient density of foods in relations to their carbon footprint. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 101, 184–191. European Commission, 2012. The International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook. European Commission, Brussels. European Commission, 2016. European Reference Life-Cycle Database. European Commission, Brussels. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/index.xhtml. FAO, 2013. Statistical Yearbook. World Food and Agriculture. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K., Cassidy, E., Gerber, J., Johnston, M., Mueller, N., O’Connel, C., Ray, D., West, P., Balzer, C., Bennet, E., Carpenter, S., Hill, J.,

Environmental nutrition and LCA

155

Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D., Zaks, D., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342. Ford, J., Pelletier, N., Ziegler, F., Scholz, A., Tyedmers, P., Sonesson, U., Kruse, S., Silverman, H., 2012. Developing local ecological impact categories and indicators for life cycle assessment of salmon aquaculture. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (2), 254–265. Heller, M., Keoleian, G., Willett, W., 2013. Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 12632–12647. Henriksson, P.J.G., Guinee, J.B., Heijungs, R., et al., 2013. A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (2), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0647-4. Henriksson, P., Heijungs, R., Dao, H., Phan, L., de Snoo, G., Guinee, J., 2015. Product carbon footprints and their uncertainties in comparative decision contexts. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0121221. Hospido, A., Vazquez, M.E., Cuevas, A., Feijoo, G., Moreira, T., 2006. Environmental assessment of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47 (1), 56–72. ISO, 2006. ISO 14044: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment— Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. J€agerskog, A., Clausen, T.J., 2012. Feeding a thirsty world: challenges and opportunities for a water and food secure future. Report No. 31, SIWI, Stockholm. Manfredi, S., Allacker, K., Pelletier, N., Schau, E., Pant, R., Pennington, D., 2015. Developing the European Commission Product Environmental Footprint methods: review of existing approaches and recommendations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (3), 389–404. Mendoza Beltran, A., Heijungs, R., Guinee, J., Tukker, A., 2016. A pseudo-statistical approach to treat choice uncertainty: the example of partitioning allocation methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0994-4. Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S., Saouter, E., Sonesson, U., 2017. The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 140 (2), 399–409. NREL, 2012. U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.lcacommons.gov/nrel/search. Parker, R., 2018. Implications of high animal by-product feed inputs in life cycle assessments of farmed Atlantic salmon. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 23 (5), 982–994. Parker, R., Va´zquez-Rowe, I., Tyedmers, P., 2015. Fuel performance and carbon footprint of the global purse seine tuna fleet. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 517–524. Pelletier, N., 2015. Life cycle thinking, measurement and management for food system sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (13), 7515–7519. Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., 2010. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 (43), 18371–18374. Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., Sonesson, U., Scholz, A., Ziegler, F., Flysjo, A., Kruse, S., Cancino, B., Silverman, H., 2009. Not all salmon are created equal: life cycle assessment (LCA) of global salmon farming systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (23), 8730–8736. Pelletier, N., Audsley, E., Brodt, S., Garnett, T., Henrikkson, P., Kendall, A., Kramer, K., Murphy, D., Nemecek, T., Troell, M., 2011. Energy intensity of agriculture and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36, 233–246. Pelletier, N., Maas, R., Goralcyk, M., Wolf, M., 2014. Conceptual basis for the European Sustainability Footprint: towards a new policy assessment framework. Environ. Dev. 9, 12–23. Pelletier, N., Brandao, M., de Camillis, C., Ardente, F., Pennington, D., 2015. Rationales for and criticisms of preferred multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency possible? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (1), 74–86.

156

Environmental nutrition

Roos, E., Karlsson, H., Witthoft, C., Sundberg, C., 2015. Evaluating the sustainability of diets—combining environmental and nutritional aspects. Environ. Sci. Policy 47, 157–166. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2009. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) of some food products. J. Food Eng. 90 (1), 1–10. Sala, S., Farioli, F., Zamagni, A., 2013. Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (9), 1653–1672. Schau, E., Fet, A., 2008. LCA studies of food product as background for environmental product declarations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (7), 255–264. Smedman, A., Lindmark-Mansson, H., Drewnowski, A., Modin Edman, A.-K., 2010. Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact. Food Nutr. Res. 54, 51–70. Sonesson, U., David, J., Flysjo, A., Gustavsson, J., Witthoft, C., 2017. Protein quality as functional unit—a methodological framework for inclusion in life cycle assessment of food. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 470–478. Stylianou, K., Heller, M., Fulgoni III, V., Ernstoff, A., Keoleian, G., Jolliet, O., 2016. A life cycle assessment framework combining nutritional and environmental health impacts of diet: a case study on milk. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 734–746. USDA, 2016. Life Cycle Assessment Commons. United States Department of Agriculture. www.lcacommons.gov. van der Werf, H., Nguyen, H., 2015. Construction cost of plant compounds provides a physical relationship for co-product allocation in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (6), 777–784. van Putten, I., Farmery, A., Green, B., Hobday, A., Lim-Camacho, L., Norman-Lo´pez, A., Parker, R., 2015. The environmental impact of two Australian rock lobster fishery supply chains under a changing climate. J. Ind. Ecol. 20 (6), 1384–1398. Vermeulen, S., Campbell, B., Ingram, J., 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 1–496. Weber, C., Mathews, S., 2008. Food-miles and relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3508–3513. Ziegler, F., Nilsson, P., Mattsson, B., Walther, Y., 2003. Life cycle assessment of frozen cod fillets including fishery-specific environmental impacts. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 (1), 39.

Further reading Fern, E., Watzke, H., Barclay, D., Roulin, A., Drewnowski, A., 2015. The nutrient balance concept: a quality metric for composite meals and diets. PLoS ONE 10 (7), e0130491. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130491. LCA Digital Commons Project. National Agricultural Library, United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.lcacommons.gov/. Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., 2011. An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (3), 342–354.

CHAPTER 9

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data Stephen Clune

Introduction Internationally, food systems contribute between 19% and 29% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Vermeulen et al., 2012). This food system is complex. Reducing the global warming potential (GWP) of the food system requires a shift in both the production and consumption of food. The production of food will need to be more efficient, using farming methods that draw down CO2, and regenerate land. The consumption or demand for different types of food will also need to shift toward those with a lower global warming potential, while eliminating avoidable food waste. Hawken’s (2017) recent text “Draw Down,” places eliminating food waste, shifting toward a plant-based diet and using progressive farming techniques as three of the top 10 strategies to mitigate carbon at negligible cost. To shift the consumption or demand for food requires change. Behavioral change literature suggests that change occurs at the intersection of the individual and the environment (Clark, 2010; Lewin, 1935). This point is perhaps best illustrated by the stalemate when the supermarket states that they only sell what the consumer wants, and the consumer states that they only buy what the supermarket sells. To achieve change will require a shift in both the individual consumer and the environment in which food is purchased. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the primary means to objectively understand a food’s environmental impact. Several years ago, we worked with a residential age care organization to develop a sustainability strategy to help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. One of our findings was that the food served to residents contributed to a large portion of their environmental impact (Clune and Lockrey, 2014). While there was a lot of information supporting a reduction in ruminant meat as a sustainability strategy, Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00010-2

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

157

158

Environmental nutrition

estimating the impact of a revised menu with some credibility was exceptionally difficult. This started an attempt to understand more clearly the global warming potential of different foods, with the understanding that the data could be shared with consumers and catering organizations so that they could calculate (and reduce) the embodied carbon dioxide emissions of the food they serve. This resulted in a Food GWP database being developed and published (Clune et al., 2017) and is the foundation for this chapter. The chapter provides an overview of the different GHG impacts of food, and how that information may be used by caterers and individuals to develop menu plans with reduced GHG emissions with confidence.

Approach The GWP database that this paper is based on was developed by completing a meta-analysis of 369 food life cycle assessment studies to provide 1718 GHG emission factors for 168 food items (Clune et al., 2017). To enable comparison, the results of the LCA studies were amended so that all food was presented as raw food per kg of produce, bone-free meat or liter, with minimal packaging at the regional distribution center (or wholesaler). This database has also been amended to include some processed plant-based protein sources (Quorn, tempeh, soy/wheat protein mock meat, and tofu) bringing the final number of GHG emission factors to 1740. The database that underpins this chapter does the unthinkable for many in the LCA community (e.g., Desjardins et al., 2012; Foster et al., 2006; R€ oo €s and Karlsson, 2013) and compares data across studies that may have used different methodologies to arrive at the conclusions. However, in capturing such a large data set the uncertainty of cherry picking several studies that may paint particular produce in a favorable or biased light is avoided, and communicates key trends that occur across the data set. It is possible to use information obtained from LCAs to reduce impacts in individual food products. For instance, sugar produced from sugar beets consumes less water than sugar from sugar cane (Hoekstra, 2011); biscuits made with margarine instead of butter have a lower embodied energy as the energy input for margarine is half of butter; and sun-dried fruit as opposed to oven-dried has reduced energy inputs and does not require the refrigeration that fresh ingredients do (Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003). At present, detailed LCA data to compare individual products and inform in store choice between brands, e.g., to select brand X over brand Y to reduce the GWP, are very limited. However, developing meal plans,

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

159

menus, or weekly shops based on the broader understanding of the GWP of different foods is possible.

Food GWP hierarchy and rules of thumb The first analysis presented from the food GWP database compares all 1740 LCA results across broad food categories: fruit and vegetables, legumes/ pulses/cereals, fish, poultry, nonruminant animals and ruminant animals, etc. When you step back and look at Table 1 and Fig. 1, a clear GWP food hierarchy begins to emerge across these broad categories. Field-grown fruits and vegetables (median of 0.40 kg CO2 eq./kg) and grains, cereals, and pulses have very low impacts (median of 0.51 kg CO2 eq./kg), followed by tree nuts (median of 1.20 kg CO2 eq./kg). There are medium impacts from poultry (median of 3.71 kg CO2 eq./kg) and nonruminant animals (median of 5.72 kg CO2 eq./kg), with ruminant animals (median of 26.61 kg CO2 eq./kg) having the highest impact. Vegetables grown in a greenhouse have a slightly higher impact than field-grown vegetables, depending on if they are grown in a passive or heated greenhouse. Fish also have a medium impact, however, have a much broader range of impacts depending on species and how they are caught or farmed. The table has been collated from LCA studies across various geographical regions around the world, with differing production methods (e.g., organic versus conventional, grass fed vs feedlot), as well as methodological calculations (in input-output economic allocation vs process-based LCA). These are all thrown in together for analysis. Despite these variations attributed to production techniques and methodological calculations, a hierarchy remains clear. That is, most of the GWP values from the 389 field-grown vegetables analyzed fell into a narrow band between the lower (Q1) and upper quartiles (Q3) of 0.25–0.61 kg CO2 eq./kg, and are very far from overlapping with the Q1–Q3 results from nonruminant animals (4.49–6.58 kg CO2 eq./kg), cheese (7.79–9.58 kg CO2 eq./kg), and ruminant animals (21.84–33.12 kg CO2 eq./kg). These broad brush categories provide the ball park rules of thumb to reduce the GWP potential of meals and are the rational for Macdiarmid et al. (2011) to suggest “more plants, less meat,” or why a shift toward a plant-based diet was rated so highly in Hawken’s (2017) recent book to address climate change. Hoolohan et al. (2013, p. 1065) estimated that eliminating meat from the diet would lead to a potential 35% reduction in an individual’s food greenhouse emissions, while changing from

160

Category

Fruit and vegetables (field grown) Legumes/pulses/cereals (except rice) Passive greenhouse fruit and vegetables Tree nuts Milk (world average) Heated greenhouse fruit and vegetables Rice Fish (all species) Poultry (chicken, turkey, duck, emu) Nonruminant animals (pork, rabbit, kangaroo) Cheese Ruminant animals (lamb/beef/buffalo)

Median

Mean

Standard deviation

% dev.

Min

Max

Q1

Q3

No. of GWP values

0.40

0.48

0.33

69

0.04

2.54

0.25

0.61

389

0.51

0.58

0.33

56

0.11

2.46

0.38

0.69

142

1.1

1.02

0.49

48

0.32

1.94

0.54

1.35

15

1.20 1.29 2.13

1.42 1.39 2.81

0.93 0.58 1.61

66 41 57

0.43 0.54 0.84

3.77 7.50 7.4

0.61 1.14 1.74

2.13 1.50 3.7

21 262 53

2.55 3.49 3.71

2.66 4.41 4.20

1.29 3.62 1.83

48 82 43

0.66 0.78 1.06

5.69 20.86 9.98

1.64 1.99 2.77

3.08 5.16 5.36

27 148 105

5.72

5.82

1.63

28

3.20

11.86

4.49

6.58

132

8.55 26.61

8.86 29.13

2.07 13.49

23 46

5.33 10.05

16.35 109.35

7.79 21.84

9.58 33.12

38 225

Environmental nutrition

Table 1 GWP values (kg CO2 eq./kg produce or bone free meat) across broad food categories

Fig. 1 Summary of GWP hierarchy (kg CO2 eq./kg produce or bone free meat) across broad food categories.

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

161

162

Environmental nutrition

carbon-intensive lamb and beef to less carbon-intensive pork and chicken would lead to a potential 18% reduction. Similarly, the Livewell Report, commissioned by the WWF, identified diets that are both more nutritional and offer a lower GWP (Macdiarmid et al., 2011, p. 8). Ruminant livestock such as beef and lamb (red meat) have a higher GWP as cattle require more feed per edible weight than pork or poultry, and ruminant livestock emit methane (a harmful greenhouse gas) from their foregut through the enteric fermentation process (Verge et al., 2008). This leads to higher GHG emissions than nonruminant livestock such as pigs, chickens, and fish.1 While the variation in results in the nonruminant category is large and varies due to geographic location, herd size, and feed type, no studies estimated a GWP value for beef or lamb that was lower than poultry. Only 2 of the 132 GWP values for nonruminant animals (specifically pork) were higher than the lowest GWP value for ruminants (beef and lamb). This hierarchy confirms what Virtanen et al. (2011) suggest, the “climate change impacts per kg of product (or raw food material) vary between specific vegetable products and beef products by a factor of ten to twenty (90–95%), and the variation among complete, nutritionally balanced dishes ranges by a factor of two to five (50–80%), and is very significant” (2011, p. 1854). The remainder of the chapter aims to assist in calculating the GWP of dishes.

Detailed GWP values and streamline calculations of meal plans Moving beyond general rules of thumb, to more nuanced and streamlined calculations of meals based on LCA results of individual food types is recommended to enable the generation of meals and menu plans with confidence and be objectively defended. Table 2 presents results for individual foods with lowest to highest GWP, to enable the streamlined estimation of the GWP of meals. Where possible, several foods (pork, lamb, beef, and milk) were grouped into geographic regions that show minor variations in results due to broad geographic climatic conditions. Calculating the diets using the

1

Research into techniques to reduce the GWP of beef production is ongoing, particularly in Australia with programs experimenting with alternate feeds to reduce methane emissions in the enteric fermentation process, and land management practices that may draw and sequester carbon in soils.

Table 2 Individual GWP values (kg CO2 eq./kg produce or bone free meat) from low to high, amended to include processed meat free alternatives Tofu, Tempeh, Quorn, and Impossible Burger patty)

Median

Mean

Onion Celery Potatoes Carrots Zucchini/button squash Cucumber/ gherkins Beetroot Pumpkins Rockmelon/ cantaloupe Beans: plake Lemons and limes Mushrooms Guavas Apples Swedes (rutabage) Pears Quinces Beans: green

0.17 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.21

0.18

0.11

0.20 0.22 0.42

0.23

Deviation from mean (%)

Min

Max

Q1

Q3

60

0.06

0.37

0.10

0.21

0.08 0.15 0.50

41 65 121

0.08 0.04 0.09

0.36 0.50 1.17

0.16 0.11 0.16

0.33

0.32

96

0.13

1.30

0.24 0.25 0.25

0.23 0.33

0.11 0.25

50 74

0.11 0.15

0.26 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.31

0.30 0.30 0.27

0.12 0.06 0.29

38 19 110

0.36

0.19

0.33 0.31 0.51

0.13 0.01 0.47

No. of LCA studies

No. of GWP values

0.26 0.31 0.46

7 1 16 10 3

9 1 25 13 4

0.19

0.31

7

15

1.61 0.73

0.18 0.16

0.29 0.37

2 4 1

3 8 1

0.22 0.18 0.06

0.43 0.45 0.48

0.24 0.22 0.16

0.35 0.35 0.37

53

0.18

0.89

0.21

0.47

41 5 93

0.19 0.30 0.24

0.63 0.32 1.55

0.27 0.31 0.26

0.33 0.32 0.46

1 2 3 1 21 1 4 2 4

3 3 2 1 33 1 8 2 7

163

Continued

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

Name

Standard deviation

Median

Mean

Watermelons Dates Orange Kiwi fruit Cauliflowers and broccoli Grapes Oats Rye Peas Cherries Beans—gigante/ butter Almond, coconut milk Peaches and nectarines Figs Barley Apricot Chestnuts Beans

0.32 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.36

0.32

0.09

0.35 0.47 0.35

0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39

Deviation from mean (%)

Min

Max

Q1

Q3

29

0.25

0.38

0.28

0.35

0.12 0.26 0.06

34 55 17

0.18 0.15 0.28

0.59 0.88 0.42

0.25 0.29 0.32

0.41 0.44 0.41 0.60 0.48 0.36

0.25 0.12 0.07 0.77 0.40 0.09

60 26 17 128 83 25

0.15 0.38 0.36 0.15 0.26 0.26

0.88 0.67 0.49 2.46 0.88 0.43

0.42

0.42

0.03

8

0.39

0.43

0.54

0.24

44

0.49

0.24

0.62

0.45

0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43

No. of LCA studies

No. of GWP values

0.45 0.68 0.39

2 1 9 5 4

2 1 20 9 4

0.31 0.38 0.37 0.21 0.31 0.32

0.41 0.45 0.44 0.50 0.56 0.41

5 4 2 6 2 1

6 6 3 8 4 3

0.44

0.39

0.44

1

4

0.38

0.81

0.41

0.62

3

3

49

0.11

0.98

0.34

0.60

73

0.22

1.55

0.26

0.72

1 7 1 1 11

1 13 1 1 22

Environmental nutrition

Name

Standard deviation

164

Table 2 Individual GWP values (kg CO2 eq./kg produce or bone free meat) from low to high, amended to include processed meat free alternatives Tofu, Tempeh, Quorn, and Impossible Burger patty)—cont’d

0.45 0.45 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.51

0.46 0.63

0.18 0.38

39 60

0.08 0.40

1.00 1.38

0.35 0.42

0.55 0.61

0.48 0.58 0.72 0.88

0.13 0.04 0.53 0.01

28 6 74 2

0.33 0.38 0.40 0.30

0.61 0.96 1.78 1.74

0.40 0.44 0.45 0.32

0.57 0.62 0.64 1.55

0.51

1 19 6 1 1 1 2 5 4 1

1 56 6 1 1 4 4 6 5 1

1

1

0.51

0.67

0.34

51

0.32

1.28

0.44

0.86

5

8

0.52 0.54 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.66

0.51 0.54

0.17 0.51

33 95

0.18 0.18

1.10 0.91

0.40 0.36

0.60 0.73

0.65 0.70 0.56 0.60

0.36 0.34 0.22 0.27

55 48 38 44

0.20 0.37 0.22 0.23

1.50 1.73 0.85 0.87

0.37 0.49 0.52 0.55

0.84 0.70 0.66 0.71

20 2 1 15 6 4 3

51 2 1 21 17 8 4

1

1

0.73

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

Mandarin Tomato Maize/corn Fennel Artichokes Cowpeas Soybean Pineapples Melons Grapefruit and pomelo Tangerines, mandarins Tomatoes: passive greenhouse Wheat Spinach Garlic Strawberries Broccoli Olives Capsicums/ peppers Beans: pinto USA dried

Continued

165

Median

Mean

Soy milk Beans: french and runner Chick peas Asparagus Peanuts Raspberries Currants and gooseberries Sesame seed Ginger Cranberries, blueberries Hazelnuts Ground nuts Lentils Pilchard Peppers: passive and heated greenhouse Quinoa Herring

0.75 0.75

0.88 0.85

0.27 0.37

0.77 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84

0.67 0.92 0.87

0.19 0.49 0.11

Deviation from mean (%)

No. of LCA studies

No. of GWP values

Min

Max

Q1

Q3

31 44

0.66 0.52

1.40 1.37

0.70 0.63

0.98 0.97

2 1

8 4

29 53 13

0.45 0.18 0.80

0.80 2.54 1.10

0.61 0.60 0.81

0.79 1.05 0.87

2 5 3 1 1

3 28 6 1 1 1 1 2

0.88 0.88 0.92

0.92

0.07

8

0.86

0.97

0.89

0.94

1 1 2

0.97 0.99 1.03 1.10 1.10

0.97 0.99 1.03 1.10 1.08

0.76 0.48 0.04 0.45 0.17

78 49 4 41 16

0.43 0.65 1.00 0.78 0.90

1.50 1.33 1.06 1.41 1.25

0.70 0.82 1.02 0.94 1.00

1.23 1.16 1.05 1.26 1.17

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 3

1.15 1.16 1.29

1.15 1.17 1.39

0.07 0.17 0.58

6 15 41

1.10 0.98 0.54

1.20 1.39 7.50

1.13 1.09 1.14

1.18 1.25 1.50

2 3 77

2 4 262

Environmental nutrition

Name

Standard deviation

166

Table 2 Individual GWP values (kg CO2 eq./kg produce or bone free meat) from low to high, amended to include processed meat free alternatives Tofu, Tempeh, Quorn, and Impossible Burger patty)—cont’d

1.30 1.31 1.35

1.43 1.35

0.25 0.07

18 5

1.17 1.30

2.00 1.40

1.28 1.33

1.48 1.38

2 7 1

1 11 2

1.41 1.44 1.43

1.55 1.37

0.85 0.11

55 8

1.06 1.24

2.27 1.43

1.29 1.33

1.70 1.43

1 3 1

1 4 3

1.51 1.53 1.54 1.60 1.64

1.62 1.53 1.74 1.65 2.56

1.13 0.91 1.25 0.47 2.32

70 60 72 29 91

0.50 0.88 0.51 1.20 0.84

2.94 2.17 3.77 2.14 5.20

1.32 1.20 0.76 1.40 1.24

2.54 1.85 2.33 1.87 3.42

3 1 4 2 3

4 2 6 3 3

1.76 1.77

1.80 1.77

0.11 0.24

6 13

1.73 1.60

1.93 1.94

1.74 1.69

1.84 1.86

1 1

3 2

1.80 1.92

2.00 2.30

1.08 1.65

54 72

0.94 0.32

4.50 6.12

1.30 1.05

2.40 3.10

9 14

21 29

1

1

2.09

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

Milk: world average Avocados Yoghurt Eggplants (aubergines) Sunflower seed Cashew nut Melons: passive greenhouse Walnuts Pistachios Almonds Pollock Strawberries: heated greenhouse Carp Zucchini: passive greenhouse Mackerel Greenhouse tomatoes Rape and mustard seed

Continued

167

Median

Mean

Cucumbers and gherkins: heated greenhouse Soy/wheat protein mock meat Tofu Tuna Tomatoes: heated greenhouse Tempeh Rice Whiting Quorn Duck Sea bass Haddock Eggs Salmon Fish: all species Cod

2.10

2.23

0.71

2.13

2.39

2.15 2.15 2.20 2.40 2.55 2.66 2.90 3.09 3.27 3.41 3.46 3.47 3.49 3.51

Deviation from mean (%)

No. of LCA studies

No. of GWP values

Min

Max

Q1

Q3

17

1.68

3.79

1.89

2.12

5

7

0.72

30

1.40

3.40

2.10

2.95

2

9

2.29 2.60 2.69

1.05 1.45 1.36

45 56 51

0.81 1.39 0.92

3.80 6.32 6.12

1.44 1.75 1.86

3.12 2.68 3.65

7 4 13

11 10 33

2.66 2.66 2.89 3.09 3.55 3.37 3.39 3.76 4.41 3.49

1.29 1.59 0.59 1.44 1.63 0.08 1.21 1.47 3.62 1.31

48 60 21 47 46 3 36 39 82 37

0.66 1.54 2.35 2.07 1.91 2.80 1.30 2.04 0.78 1.58

5.69 3.79 3.40 4.10 5.76 3.84 6.00 8.33 20.86 5.38

1.64 2.10 2.39 2.58 2.68 3.03 2.45 2.88 1.99 2.25

3.08 3.22 2.90 3.59 4.14 3.75 4.05 4.13 5.16 4.50

1 12 2 3 2 2 2 19 9 47 10

1 27 2 4 2 4 4 38 21 148 16

Environmental nutrition

Name

Standard deviation

168

Table 2 Individual GWP values (kg CO2 eq./kg produce or bone free meat) from low to high, amended to include processed meat free alternatives Tofu, Tempeh, Quorn, and Impossible Burger patty)—cont’d

3.57 3.65 3.70 3.88 4.10 4.20 4.70 5.64 5.77

3.75 4.12 3.15

0.86 1.72 1.64

23 42 52

2.87 1.06 1.30

5.20 9.98 4.73

3.14 2.77 1.50

4.18 5.31 4.51

1 29 3

7 95 5

1 1 9 2 3 38

1 1 20 2 4 130

2 2 1 3

2 2 1 4

7 3 2 1 22 4 3 5

11 7 2 1 38 8 5 7

3.73 4.70 5.32 5.85

1.13 1.24 1.62 1.63

30 26 31 28

1.37 3.82 2.10 3.20

5.95 5.58 7.92 11.86

3.11 4.26 3.82 4.50

4.33 5.14 7.14 6.59

6.45 6.63 6.94 7.13

6.45 6.63

4.69 4.44

73 67

3.13 3.49

9.77 9.77

4.79 5.06

8.11 8.20

8.07

2.40

30

6.39

11.61

6.78

8.42

7.80 7.17 8.33 8.41 8.55 9.25 9.51 9.77

14.85 6.04 8.33

12.37 0.66 3.27

83 11 39

5.25 3.34 6.02

38.00 8.49 10.65

6.76 3.82 7.17

20.20 7.83 9.49

8.86 11.52 7.54 8.98

2.07 7.37 4.93 3.93

23 64 65 44

5.33 3.70 1.92 2.14

16.35 25.00 13.90 14.15

7.79 7.28 2.54 7.07

9.58 12.41 9.84 11.32

Continued

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

Buffalo milk Chicken Lettuce: heated greenhouse Eel Kangaroo Trout Rabbit Cream Pork: world average Ling common Pomfret Rock fish Octopus/squid/ cuttlefish Prawns/shrimp Turkey Diamond fish Rhombus Cheese Butter Mussels Hake

169

Median

Porbeagle Shark mako Anglerfish Swordfish Megrim Turbot Sole Lamb: world average Beef: world average Lobster Buffalo

11.44 11.50 12.29 12.84 14.15 14.51 20.86 25.58

Mean

11.50 12.29 12.84

0.09 2.63 1.98

14.51

Deviation from mean (%)

Min

Max

Q1

Q3

1 21 15

11.44 10.43 11.44

11.56 14.15 14.24

11.47 11.36 12.14

11.53 13.22 13.54

6.91

48

9.63

19.40

12.07

16.96

27.91

11.93

43

10.05

56.70

17.61

26.61

28.73

12.47

43

10.74

109.3

27.80 60.43

21.74 62.59

11.7 20.35

56 33

7.62 28.78

28.30 100.7

No. of LCA studies

No. of GWP values

33.85

1 2 2 2 1 2 1 22

1 2 2 2 1 2 1 56

22.26

31.57

49

165

17.71 43.88

28.05 79.14

3 1

2 4

Source: Clune et al. (2017) meta-analysis of food GHGE. Additional figures for Quorn, Tempeh, Soy/wheat protein mock meat and Tofu have been added. All fruit and vegetables field grown unless stated, passive greenhouse has no auxiliary heating.

Environmental nutrition

Name

Standard deviation

170

Table 2 Individual GWP values (kg CO2 eq./kg produce or bone free meat) from low to high, amended to include processed meat free alternatives Tofu, Tempeh, Quorn, and Impossible Burger patty)—cont’d

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

171

lower (Q1) and upper (Q3) quartile values presented in Table 2 is viewed as a proxy measure to calculate data uncertainty. Table 2 provides the detail to enable a streamlined calculation of most menus and meals prepared from raw ingredients, by multiplying the median GWP (kg CO2 eq./kg produce) by the mass of ingredients. Three alternate recipes for the classic spaghetti bolognaise are presented in Table 3, to illustrate how the substitution of ingredients may shift the GWP of a comparable meal. Table 3 Comparison of the GWP for three spaghetti bolognaise recipes kg CO2 eq./kg produce

kg CO2 eq./ recipe

% GWP/ meal

1. Spaghetti bolognaise with beef

Sauce Beef mince (400 g) Tomatoes (1 kg) Red onion  2 (350 g) Garlic cloves  5 (18 g) Fresh basil (50 g) Olive oil (15 g) Red wine (100 mL) Carrots  3 grated (250 g) Zucchini grated (100 g) Spaghetti Flour  2 cups (320 g) Eggs  3 (210 g) Olive oil (15 g) Total

22.88 0.45 0.17 0.57 0.37 1.45 0.2 0.21 0.52 3.46

9.15 0.45 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.02

83.6 4.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.2

0.17 0.73 0.07 10.94

1.5 6.6 0.6 100

1.64 0.45 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.02

47.8 13.1 1.7 0.3 0.5 2.1 4.2 1.5 0.6

2. Spaghetti bolognaise with kangaroo

Sauce Roo mince (400 g) Tomatoes (1 kg) Red onion  2 (350 g) Garlic cloves  5 (18 g) Fresh basil (50 g) Olive oil (15 g) Red wine (100 mL) Carrots  3 grated (250 g) Zucchini grated (100 g) Spaghetti

4.1 0.45 0.17 0.57 0.37 1.45 0.2 0.21

Continued

172

Environmental nutrition

Table 3 Comparison of the GWP for three spaghetti bolognaise recipes—cont’d kg CO2 eq./kg produce

Flour  2 cups (320 g) Eggs  3 (210 g) Olive oil (15 g) Total

0.52 3.46

kg CO2 eq./ recipe

0.17 0.73 0.07 3.43

% GWP/ meal

4.9 21.2 2.1 100

3. Vegetarian Spaghetti “bolognaise” kidney beans and lentils

Sauce 425 can kidney beans (200 g dry) 3/4 cup dried brown lentils Tomatoes (1 kg) Red onion  2 (350 g) Garlic cloves  5 (18 g) Fresh basil (50 g) Olive oil (15 g) Red wine (100 mL) Carrots  3 grated (250 g) Zucchini  1 grated (100 g) Spaghetti Flour  2 cups (320 g) Eggs  3 (210 g) Olive oil (15 g) Total

0.73

0.15

7.0

1.03 0.45 0.17 0.57 0.37

0.15 0.45 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.02

7.4 21.5 2.8 0.5 0.9 3.4 6.9 2.4 1.0

0.17 0.73 0.07 2.09

8.0 34.8 3.4 100

1.45 0.2 0.21 0.52 3.46

The results indicate that for individual dishes, a substantial shift in GWP per meal is achieved by substituting protein from ruminant meat (10.94 kg CO2 eq./kg), with nonruminant meat, i.e., kangaroo (3.43 kg CO2 eq./kg), to plant-based protein from kidney beans and lentils (2.09 kg CO2 eq./kg). This approach of drawing peer-reviewed LCA data to estimate the impact of menus has been used by catering companies such as Bon Appetit (York, 2009). Their carbon calculator (http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/ food-scores/#) was completed by analyzing publicly available peerreviewed data on food impacts to estimate the carbon footprint of the numerous meals that they prepare. Similarly, EATS is a tool developed to compare UK school menus using peer-reviewed data (De Laurentiis et al., 2018). Retailers such as Booths supermarket in the United Kingdom followed a similar approach in drawing heavily on existing peer-reviewed LCA data to estimate the carbon footprint of food sold in stores (Berners-Lee et al., 2015). In order to meet GHG emission reduction targets

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

173

under corporate social responsibility requirements, it is envisaged that retailers will eventually be required to look at the demand side of food sold.

Protein and developing a delicious low GWP menu Some debate exists to suggest that displaying the impacts of food with a functional unit in kg CO2 eq./kg may not be the best approach to communicating the GWP of food, as food is eaten for its nutritional value in calories, proteins, and fibers, rather than just consuming a mass of produce (e.g., Heller et al., 2013). Given that the largest variation in Table 2 occurs between high protein foods, it is valuable to attempt to identify what foods offer the highest amount of protein, for the lowest GWP. Identifying alternate protein sources is a common inquiry when attempting to shift away from a high meat-based diet. In addition, previous studies that have attempted this have only identified a limited range of food types with respect to the diverse range of possible protein alternatives. Table 4 has combined Clune et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis of LCA studies to identify the GWP of predominately raw food types with a protein value higher than 3 g/100 g. The GWP values were divided by protein figures for raw food provided by the US dietary website (USDA, 2014). This created 88,994 GWP/protein scenarios which where statistically analyzed. Table 4 GWP/protein ratio for select foods g CO2 eq./g protein figures Median g CO2 eq./g Standard protein deviation

Number of LCA/protein scenarios utilized

Food

Subfood category

Yellow peas, dry Green peas, dry Beans: black beans, kidney, cannellini, pinto Oats Soybean Peanuts/ground nuts Rye Chick peas Lentils Barley Wheat

Legume Legume Legume

0.88 1.42 2.53

0.03 1.09 2.18

2 2 52

Cereal Legume Legume Cereal Legume Legume Cereal Cereal

2.78 3.22 3.26 3.58 3.99 4.06 4.34 4.52

1.17 2.07 0.80 0.84 1.01 0.16 2.43 1.70

27 12 32 12 3 4 13 816 Continued

174

Environmental nutrition

Table 4 GWP/protein ratio for select foods g CO2 eq./g protein figures—cont’d Median g CO2 eq./g Standard protein deviation

Number of LCA/protein scenarios utilized

Food

Subfood category

Herring Almonds Cashew nuts Quinoa Mackerel Tuna Pollock Tempeh Soy/wheat gluten mock meat Salmon Duck Chicken Kangaroo Quorn Cod Rabbit Tofu Pork Eggs Turkey Rice Cow milk Cheese (combined avg.) Prawns/shrimp Beef Lamb Lobster

Fish Tree nuts Tree nuts Cereal Fish Fish Fish Meat alternative (V) Meat alternative (V)

6.76 7.23 7.90 8.14 8.92 9.22 10.43 12.94 12.79

0.98 5.59 2.81 0.50 5.47 6.07 3.99 0.00 3.37

8 12 4 2 84 30 6 1 9

Fish Nonruminant Poultry Nonruminant Meat alternative (V) Fish Nonruminant Meat alternative (V) Nonruminant Poultry Poultry Cereal Dairy Dairy

16.98 19.34 19.60 19.68 20.00 21.61 22.33 23.62 28.01 28.03 33.29 37.12 37.36 37.58

7.03 7.94 9.67 0.73 4.08 8.03 4.99 13.13 8.40 9.79 10.49 19.34 16.99 15.80

168 10 4370 2 4 32 4 88 7998 37 273 108 4192 1632

57.31 128.33 141.80 152.83

90.89 62.99 65.41 62.45

11 56,265 4144 3

Shellfish Ruminant Ruminant Shellfish

The results from Table 4 reinforce the hierarchy identified earlier, that legumes and cereals offer the most satisfactory GWP/Protein ratio followed by nonruminant meats (pork, fish, and poultry) and then ruminants (lamb and beef ). Processed vegetarian meat alternatives were comparable with some nonruminant meat, being slightly higher than cereals, legumes, and nuts. A large diversity of results occurs between fish species, suggesting that GWP may not be the best indicator for fish sustainability given the complexity of overfishing.

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

175

While these figures only take into consideration GWP and protein, the Blonk Consultants Optimise your diet tool (Durlinger and Zijderveld, 2016) extends the combination of LCA and nutritional data, providing a tool to meet the recommended dietary guidelines with the lowest GWP.

To make headway, focus on cuisine, not ingredients When you discuss food presented in Table 4, it is important not to forget about cuisine. A cuisine-based approach is essential if you are to attempt to make a shift toward food types with lower GWP. Legumes and grains appear to be the super food with the combination of low GWP and high protein. The process of seeking out meals with ingredients should be an enjoyable challenge and one which can occur by seeking out more international cuisine that have pulses, legumes, and grains as their foundation. For example, Indian cuisine is based on pulses, Mexican or Greek dishes based on beans, and Japanese dishes comprise a small portion of fish, rice, and vegetables. Embracing and promoting the diversity of cuisine that use legumes, beans, and grains may be a preferred strategy rather than telling a large segment of the population to “not eat meat” or “to eat less meat.” Online reverse menu planners such as https://www.allrecipes.com.au may be useful in identifying a range of meals available from the specified ingredients. Bon Appetit Catering Company (York, 2009) used this strategy in serving a more culturally diverse range of dishes (which generally have higher vegetable ratio) to reduce the GWP of their meals. Their “Low Carbon Diet initiative resulted in a 33% drop in beef purchases over five years”(WWF, 2016, p. 42). Thinking through the numerous grains also assists to acknowledge the high percentage of foods that may not necessarily be acknowledged for there protein content. A loaf of bread and a bowl of porridge or muesli in the morning go a long way to making up your daily protein intake.

A side about food waste The data presented in this chapter exclude consumer food waste, with estimates indicating that consumers throw away around one-third of the food they purchase, of which up to 72% could be potentially avoidable2 (Quested and Johnson, 2009, p. 5). Any actions that reduce consumer waste could 2

WRAP defines avoidable food waste is food that was edible at some point prior to disposal.

176

Environmental nutrition

theoretically reduce impacts associated with food production, and the associated methane emissions generated when food degrades in landfill. Research has found that there are many reasons why consumers waste food including poor planning of meals in advance, cooking incorrect portions for the number of people eating the meal, forgetting to eat leftovers, purchasing food in incorrect portions, and poor surveying of fridge/freezer/cupboard prior to purchase (DECCW, 2009; Jean-Babtise et al., 2011; Ventour, 2008). WRAP’s work in the United Kingdom has also focused strongly on moving beyond blaming individual consumers, and involved retailers and brand owners to consider more appropriate portion sizes, resealable packaging, and removing incentives for multiple purchases (WRAP, 2010). Eliminating avoidable food waste in the UK could reduce an individual’s food greenhouse emissions by a potential 12% (Hoolohan et al., 2013, p. 1065).

Caution in using the results and further research The variation of results within individual food types in some categories is often high, and could be biased if you decided to cite only a limited number of LCA studies. A limited number of industrially produced food types dominate with respect to the quantity of LCA studies produced (e.g., 262 results for milk), with many of the high protein/low GWP foods receiving less scholarship—with a lower number of LCA studies identified (e.g., 2 results for Quinoa). Food types with a lower number of studies would benefit from further attention (see right-hand column of Table 2), given their potential role as a protein source in sustainable human diets. The results illustrate which food types have had limited LCA studies, and suggest areas for further research.

Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of the different GHG impacts of food and has presented: 1. A comparison between broad food categories to identify a food GWP hierarchy. This has shown that field-grown fruits and vegetables, grains, cereals, and pulses have very low GHG impacts, followed by tree nuts. Poultry has medium impact, as do nonruminant animals. Ruminant animals (beef and lamb) have the highest impact, with fish species varying significantly.

Calculating GHG impacts of meals and menus using streamlined LCA data

177

2. Detailed results for the GWP of individual food types were presented to illustrate how the data may be used by caterers and individuals to develop meal plans with reduced GHG emissions based on streamlined LCA data. 3. The results were presented in respect to the GWP/protein ratio. Identifying foods with low GWP and high protein may assist in identifying the base ingredient/protein source for meals and menus. This strategy of selecting foods with a lower embodied GWP may be met with some skepticism. Changing diets can be difficult, given for example that no country has successfully managed to counter the rising trend in obesity, which is largely caused by consuming too many calories (and not moving enough). So there may be warranted skepticism around the ability to change diets for environmental sustainability. However, diets do shift rapidly and are dynamic. For example, red meat consumption peaked in Australia in 1976–77 (70 kg/person/year) with low prices and high production, and fell 44% in 10 years through a combination of price and attitude. Similarly, “chicken meat increased by 28% in a decade from 24 kg in 1988–89 to 31 kg per person in 1998–99” (ABS, 2005, p. 478). Hence, I assume that diets will continue to be dynamic in the future and could be influenced. The challenge is to drive informed change that will be beneficial for both people and planet.

References ABS, 2005. Australia’s Beef Cattle Industry. vol. 87 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Berners-Lee, M., Moss, J., Hoolohan, C., 2015. The greenhouse gas footprint of Booths. Retrieved from Lancaster, https://www.booths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/BoothsGHG-Report-2014.pdf. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekstr€ om, M.P., Shanahan, H., 2003. Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 44 (2–3), 293–307. Clark, G.L., 2010. Human nature, the environment, and behaviour: explaining the scope and geographical scale of financial decision-making. Geogr. Ann. B Human Geogr. 92 (2), 159–173. Clune, S., Lockrey, S., 2014. Developing environmental sustainability strategies, the Double Diamond method of LCA and design thinking: a case study from aged care. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 67–82. Clune, S., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2017. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod. 140 (2), 766–783. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082. De Laurentiis, V., Hunt, D.V.L., Lee, S.E., Rogers, C.D.F., 2018. EATS: a life cycle-based decision support tool for local authorities and school caterers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1460-x. DECCW, 2009. Food Waste Avoidance Benchmark Study 2009. Retrieved from: http:// www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au/portals/0/kit/print/10242FWAFactsheetCMYK_ print.pdf. Desjardins, R.L., Worth, D.E., Verge, X.P.C., Maxime, D., Dyer, J., Cerkowniak, D., 2012. Carbon footprint of beef cattle. Sustainability 4, 3279–3301.

178

Environmental nutrition

Durlinger, B., Zijderveld, A., 2016. Optimise your diet. Retrieved from: https://tools. blonkconsultants.nl/diet/diet. Foster, C., Green, K., Beda, M., Dervick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., Mylan, J., 2006. Environmental Impacts of Food Prodcution and Consumption. Retrieved from London, http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRA-Environmental Impacts of Food Production Consumption.pdf. Hawken, P., 2017. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Roll Back Global Warming. Penguin Putnam Inc, New York. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., Willett, W.C., 2013. Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (22), 12632–12647. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4025113. Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. A Comprehensive Introduction to Water Footprints. Retrieved from Netherlands, http://www.waterfootprint.org/downloads/WaterFootprint-PresentationGeneral.ppt. Hoolohan, C., Berners-Lee, M., McKinstry-West, J., Hewitt, C.N., 2013. Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food through realistic consumer choices. Energy Policy 63, 1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.046. Jean-Babtise, N., Michener, L., Wilson, R., 2011. Using a food waste diary to impact food waste reduction in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs. In: Paper presented at the Waste—The Social Context, The Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence. Lewin, K., 1935. A Dynamic Theory of Personality—Selected Papers. Published April 16th 2013 by Lewin Press. Macdiarmid, J., Kyle, J., Horgan, G., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A., McNeill, G., 2011. Livewell: a balance of healthy and sustainable food choices. Retrieved from Aberdeen: http://www.businessnz.org.nz/file/2054/Livewell_ A balance of healthy and sustainable food choices - WWF%5B2%5D.pdf. Quested, T., Johnson, H., 2009. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK (1-84405430-6). Retrieved from Oxon. R€ oo €s, E., Karlsson, H., 2013. Effect of eating seasonal on the carbon footprint of Swedish vegetable consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.06.035. USDA, 2014. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Release 26 Software v.1.3.1. Retrieved from: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list. Ventour, L., 2008. Food waste report v2. Retrieved from Weston-super-Mare, http://wrap. s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf. Verge, X.P.C., Dyer, J.A., Desjardins, R.L., Worth, D., 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian beef industry. Agric. Syst. 98 (2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.agsy.2008.05.003. Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., Ingram, J.S.I., 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37 (1), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevenviron-020411-130608. Virtanen, Y., Kurppa, S., Saarinen, M., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Usva, K., M€aenp€a€a, I., et al., 2011. Carbon footprint of food – approaches from national input–output statistics and a LCA of a food portion. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (16), 1849–1856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2011.07.001. WRAP, 2010. Evaluation of Courtauld Food Waste Target – Phase 1. Retrieved from Oxon: http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Evaluation_of_Courtauld_1_Food_ Waste_Target_final.b8f2a24c.11463.pdf. WWF, 2016. Catering for sustainability making the case for sustainable diets in foodservice. Retrieved from: https://www.foodethicscouncil.org/uploads/publications/Catering for Sustainability_Full_Report(1).pdf. York, H., 2009. Food and Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://www. circleofresponsibility.com/page/350/food-and-climate-change.htm.

CHAPTER 10

Determinants of sustainable diets
, Tony Jehi Joan Sabate

Introduction The current food system is destroying the environment upon which future food production depends. This is due to the industrial food production and the consumption patterns of the population. Both are stressing the planet and have contributed to the crossing of several biophysical thresholds that define the safe operating space for humanity (Aiking, 2014). To address these problems, the food system and dietary habits need to change. There is a growing body of literature exploring a variety of approaches: agriculture technology improvements, changes in the food choices and dietary patterns of populations, and the reduction of food losses and wastes in the supply chain. Agricultural and technological improvements can achieve significant natural resource savings and environmental protection. However, to obtain the necessary levels of efficiency and as a way to resolve the diet-environmenthealth trilemma (Chapter 1), changes in dietary choices (types of foods) and dietary habits (food waste) seem critical. Hence, adopting a sustainable diet at the global level is essential. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines sustainable diets as “those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations” (Burlingame and Dernini, 2012). The environmental sustainability of a diet is assessed by two dimensions: the efficiency of producing the foods comprising the diet and the degree of environmental impacts from the production of these foods. Efficiency is a measure of the use of natural resources to obtain the foods of a diet and is quantified by the ratio of inputs to outputs. The second dimension addresses the preservation of ecological systems that allow life on earth and is measured by environmental indicators such as global warming potential, biodiversity, and pollution. Thus, both dimensions of environmental sustainability, the efficient use of natural resources, and the avoidance of environmental degradation in the production, preparation, and disposal

Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00012-6

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

181

182

Environmental nutrition

of the food consumed, should be considered in assessing the sustainability of a diet (Sabat
e and Soret, 2014). This chapter will focus on the potential effect of population-level dietary choices (type of foods) and habits (food waste) on sustainability and will introduce and discuss four determinants of sustainable diets.

The four determinants of a sustainable diet There are four major determinants that define a sustainable diet from the consumer’s perspective. Fig. 1 illustrates these four determinants displayed in four axis. The figure portrays at the opposing ends of each of the four axis, the type of foods that most contribute to unsustainable diets on the left side, and sustainable diets on the right side. The four determinants of sustainable diets are: (1) the proportion of foods in the diet from animal versus plant origin, (2) the proportion of processed versus whole foods, (3) the proportion of imported versus foods in-season, and (4) the proportion of food wasted. The more the choice of the foods is shifted toward the right on each of the axis, the more sustainable is the diet, and vice versa when shifted toward the left. The more the diet includes plant, whole and seasonal foods, and the less it contains animal, processed, and imported foods, the more the

Fig. 1 Food determinants of sustainable diets.

Determinants of sustainable diets

183

diet is sustainable. The first three determinants reflect the type of foods while the fourth relates to the amount of food wasted.

Processed versus whole foods Prevalence The past few decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the dominance of highly processed and convenience foods. The advancement in technological innovations (Brunner et al., 2010), the role of the media (Okrent and Kumcu, 2016), and the reduced prices (Drewnowski et al., 2004) are all possible explanations for how these foods have become more prevalent. It is estimated that 90% of Americans purchase these items since they don’t require much time to prepare. Most individuals choose to devote minimal time on cooking and preparing meals (Harris and Shiptsova, 2007). In fact, in the US population, more than 3/4th of the daily energy intake comes from moderately or highly processed foods (Poti et al., 2015).

Energy usage Processing adds to the energy requirement of consumed food. It accounts for about 16% of the total food system energy usage. There are two types of processing, primary and secondary. Primary include all the stages that make food safe for consumption. It includes washing, milling, and packaging. The physical form is minimally altered. Energy required for the primary processing of food varies based on the specific type of food. For instance, corn requires milling. Corn wet milling is one of the most energy-intensive processes. The processing of sugar requires 5000 Mega Joules per ton (MJ ton
1) and edible oils require about 11,000 MJ ton
1. Processing of fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, only utilizes minimal level of energy for washing and packaging. Aside from primary processing, some food products require secondary processing, which includes methods utilized to alter primary processed foods into other food products. The physical form is significantly modified. Examples include all the steps from juicing, to peeling, stewing, canning, kneading, to cooking, baking, and drying. Secondary processing activities also require energy. It is estimated that producing breakfast cereals requires 19,000–66,000 MJ ton
1, bread requires 2000–5000 MJ ton
1 (CarlssonKanyama et al., 2003), and canning operations utilizes 10,000 MJ ton
1 (Bernstein et al., 2007).

184

Environmental nutrition

The prevalence of ultraprocessed foods has increased energy usage (Baraldi et al., 2018). These items are made mostly from substances that are derived from foods and do not comprised intact foods. Examples include shelf-stable ready meals, cakes, and confectionery. Aside from the energy costs of producing processed foods, highly processed items are more prone to deterioration. Some require preservation at low temperatures or frozen, which increases energy usage during transportation, retail, and at home. Ultraprocessed foods are not essential for satisfying the nutrient needs of the individual and could be avoided. It is demanding to adopt diets comprised solely on whole foods. Nevertheless, changes could still be made. Also, the individual could consume whole grains, whole corn, and other vegetables that need much less processing compared to ultraprocessed foods (e.g., cold breakfast cereals or pot noodles).

Environmental impacts Beyond the extra energy used in their confection, processed foods lead to environmental impacts such as climate change. The increased release of GHGs such as CO2 through combustion in boilers, cookers and furnaces, CH4, and N2O through wastewater systems, is partly accountable for climate change (Vermeulen et al., 2012). In China alone in 2007, 48 metric tons of CO2 equivalents (eq.) of emissions were due solely to food processing (Chen and Zhang, 2010). On a worldwide scale, most of the emissions released in the food processing industry are caused by the obtaining of starch, sugar, and palm oil, primary ingredients of many highly processed foods. In contrast, fruits and vegetables contribute to less GHG emissions (2.5 kg CO2 eq./kg) as they require minimal processing (washing and packaging) (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonza´lez, 2009). Processed foods, especially ultraprocessed items, generally entail more packaging in the form of bottles, cans, boxes, bags, and others, compared to unprocessed or less processed foods. Packaging contributes to the overall food-related waste and usually has a long lifetime in the environment. The half-lives of tin cans, plastic bottles, and plastic bags range from decades to centuries. Thus, adopting a diet that mainly comprises whole foods or with minimal processing or packaging, could attenuate resource use, energy requirement, climate change, and other environmental concomitants.

Determinants of sustainable diets

185

Imported versus in-season Imported food growth Nowadays, consumers expect that most foods will be available at all times regardless of the season or geographical locations. Eating patterns composed of local and seasonal foods are thus not prevalent and have been replaced with consumption patterns that depend on imported produce (Guptill and Wilkins, 2002). This is mainly due to globalization and the international trading of food products. Currently, the United States is mainly considered a net importer of produce and spends billions of dollars on that industry ( Johnson, 2014). However, there are consequences to this expansion. This includes economic impacts as local producers and markets suffer tremendously. Moreover, the nutritional value of the produce is attenuated as soon as it is harvested due to the loss of certain nutrients (Kaput et al., 2015). The financial and nutritional repercussions are not the exclusive effects of importing foods.

Energy usage From an energy perspective, reliance on certain imported foods further makes the food system unsustainable. Transportation amounts to 14% of total food system energy usage. Food is transported from production location to retail through different transportation modes. As displayed in Table 1, transportation of food by airplane, whether on a national or international mode, utilizes several times more energy compared to the other transportation modes. It is estimated that 10 M joules/ton-km (MJ/ton-km) of energy are required for air transportation (Horvath, 2006) while, on the other hand, 2.7 MJ/ton-km of energy are used for truck transportation (Davis and Diegel, 2007). Perishable foods, such as tropical fruits, that have a short-shelf life, require transportation by plane. On the other hand, foods with long-shelf life, such as nuts in shell, can be transported half-way across the world by boat with low energy usage. Table 1 Energy requirements and GHG emissions of different modes of transportation Modes of transportation

Energy requirements (Mega-joules/ton-km)

CO2 emissions (g CO2 eq./ton-km)

Boat Train Truck Airplane

0.27 0.3 2.7 10

5–20 19 180 680

Source: Elaborated with data from Cefic (2011), Davis and Diegel (2007), and Horvath (2006).

186

Environmental nutrition

Environmental impacts Importing perishable foods from long distances typically transported by airplane has a high environmental impact due to the emissions of GHGs. As displayed in Table 1, it is estimated that transportation by airplanes contributes to the highest amounts of GHG emissions compared to other modes of transportation with emissions of 680 g CO2 eq./ton-km (Horvath, 2006). Transportation by truck leads to the emission of 180 g CO2 eq./ton-km (Davis and Diegel, 2007). Transportation by boat has the least impact on climate change per km hauled compared to other transportation modes. Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonza´lez (2009) compared the different GHG emissions of commonly consumed foods. Domestic fruits had low GHG emissions; however, imported fruits by plane had very elevated emissions. For instance, fresh tropical fruits transported by plane had GHG emissions 14 times greater than domestic fresh apples (1.1 kg CO2 eq. vs 0.08 kg CO2 eq.).

Waste versus efficiency Prevalence and causes of food waste Food loss and food waste are defined as the reduction of food available for human consumption during the stages of the food supply chain. Food that is spilled or spoilt before retail is called food loss. It occurs during production, processing, packaging, and transportation. When food that is fit for human consumption is not consumed because it is spoilt or discarded by retailers, restaurants, or the consumers, it is referred to as food waste. It is estimated that 40% of US food is lost before it even reaches the consumers (Buzby et al., 2014). When taking into account the amount wasted at the consumer level, the number is greatly increased (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016; Neff et al., 2015). Food is wasted for multiple reasons by the consumer. These include the relative low prices of food products, which increases accessibility; thus, individuals tend to buy more food than they require and end up disposing a substantial portion (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2016; Qi and Roe, 2016). The misconception of expiration dates and of terms such as “used by” lead to discarding of foods by consumers when they are still safely consumable (Wikstr€ om et al., 2014). The large serving sizes at eateries and of packaged foods also contribute to food waste (Wansink and Van Ittersum, 2007).

Determinants of sustainable diets

187

It is estimated that 1200 kcal per capita of food are wasted. This would be enough to feed almost 3/4th of the American adult population (Spiker et al., 2017). Food is also wasted when it is consumed in amounts exceeding the nutritional needs of the individual. Obesity contributes to an unsustainable future in two different ways. First, the consumption of food in excess and beyond energy needs indicate this food need never have been produced. Less consumption, and thus less demand and production of food, ultimately translate to less use of resources and less environmental impacts (Edwards and Roberts, 2009; Serafini and Toti, 2016). Obesity is thus a concomitant of food waste. Secondly, it has been shown that the prevalence of obesity leads to more use of energy in transportation and to greater GHG emissions. The higher body weight of obese individuals requires more energy for transportation compared to lean individuals (Edwards and Roberts, 2009).

Energy usage The wasting of food signifies that so much nonrenewable energy has been utilized yet wasted. Cu
ellar and Webber (2010) estimated the energy intensity of food production through all the steps starting from agriculture to storage and preparation, in the United States for the year 2007, to be 8080  760 trillion BTU. The results of this study showed that about 1/4th of the energy was embedded in food waste (around 2030  160 trillion BTU). Alexander et al. (2017) estimated that the largest amounts of absolute losses occur at stages preceding harvest. Nevertheless, losses of harvested crops are significant. In fact, even before reaching the consumer, 44% of crop dry matter, 36.9% of energy, and 50% of protein of the harvested crops are lost, without taking into account overconsumption. When taking into consideration human overconsumption (intake of food beyond nutritional requirement), the level of inefficiency further increases. It was estimated that 48.4% of harvested crops were lost (53.2% of energy and 42.3% of protein) when overeating was accounted for.

Environmental impacts Food waste has direct and indirect impacts on climate change. The methane emissions of food waste at landfills encapsulate the direct effect. It was estimated that in the United Kingdom, food waste that ends in landfills contribute to the emissions of 2–13 Mt CO2 eq. year
1 of methane

188

Environmental nutrition

Fig. 2 Total GHG emissions of the top 20 GHG emitting countries versus global food wastage. From Jan, O., Tostivint, C., Turb
e, A., O’Connor, C., Lavelle, P., 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources—Summary Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e. pdf. Reproduced with permission.

(Chapagain, 2011). Yet, the more prominent and significant effect of food waste on the emissions is indirect. The GHGs emitted through production, processing, transportation, storage, and preparation of foods that are eventually wasted at the consumer level represent an indirect although major contributor to these emissions (Vermeulen et al., 2012). The later in the life cycle a product is lost/wasted, the greater the environmental impacts of its useless production and transformation. Venkat (2011) estimated that more than 113 Mt CO2 eq. year
1 of GHGs are emitted in the United States due to the avoidable food lost postproduction. This is equivalent to 13% of total food-related emissions in the country. Almost 60% of these wastes is contributed by consumers. At the global level, the carbon footprint of food wasted is massive. It exceeds the total GHGs emitted by all the economic sectors (transportation, industry, housing, food system, etc.) of each country of the planet except for China and United States (Fig. 2). If food waste were reduced by half, the food system would become much more efficient as less inputs, including land and water would be utilized in food production. It would also be less taxing on the environment as less fertilizers would be used (by 42%) (Kummu et al., 2012). Consumer behaviors are a major determinant of the amount and proportion of the food wasted. Consumers have the capacity to purchase and consume food to meet the fundamental nutrient and energy needs (eating less per capita) and thus reduce food waste.

Determinants of sustainable diets

189

Plant versus animal foods In general, the production of animal foods compared with the production of plant foods is inefficient and much more environmentally impactful. Compared with plant foods, meat and dairy products are clearly responsible for a hefty share of the natural resource utilization and the environmental burden of food production. This section will compare the efficiency and environmental impacts of plant and animal-based foods and diets. Efficiency is discussed in terms of the amount of inputs required, such as fossil fuels, water, land, fertilizers, and pesticides, to produce equivalent amounts of food or nutrient. Environmental impacts will be discussed in terms of biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change.

Efficiency Raising animals for human food is an intrinsically inefficient process as modern husbandry (animal farms) is based on intensive feeding of grain crops to animals, which could be a source of food for humans (Horrigan et al., 2002). The amount of grain needed to produce the same amount of meat varies from a ratio of 2.3 for chicken to 13 for beef. The energy-to-protein efficiency ratio varies by type of meat. For instance, it is estimated that on average, 11 times greater fossil energy is required to produce animal protein than plant protein for human consumption; this ranges from 4 times for chicken to 40 times for beef (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003). Plant-based diets are sustainable as they are more efficient to produce than the animal-based diets in terms of utilizing the following inputs: Fossil-fuel requirements: Producing plant foods requires much less fossil fuels than animal foods as the latter relies on the livestock industry for production. This industry utilizes a significant input of fossil energy to power the various farm facilities and to produce the animal feed (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013). We have assessed, as shown in Table 2, the resource efficiency and environmental repercussions of generating 1 kg of edible protein from two-plant (beans and almonds) and three animal (eggs, chicken, and beef ) sources. The results show that the production of 1 kg of protein from beef requires nine times more fossil fuel than plant proteins (2.7 L of fuel for 1 kg of beef protein vs 0.3 L for 1 kg of bean protein) (Sabat
e et al., 2015). Water requirements: Producing plant-based foods requires much less water than animal foods. This difference is due to the high water demands of the

190

Environmental nutrition

Table 2 Inputs and animal waste generated to produce 1 kg of protein from each commodity Beans

Almonds

Eggs

Chicken

Beef

4.12

4.75

8.00

9.72

13.15

4.12

4.75

8.00

6.42

5.40

10.95 1

4.75 1

8.00 1

4.17 1

3.40 1

15.5 10.4 0.3 160.5 8.9 –

21.2 23.3 0.6 426.0 103.6 –

37.6a 11.1b 0.6 263.6 12.7 17.1

32.2a 13.5b 0.7 320.3 15.5 21.8

282.6a 109.0b 2.7 1945.1 93.0 105.1

Food yields

Raw weight from farms (kg) Raw weight from retailers (kg) Cooked weight (kg) Protein (kg) Environmental factors

Land (m2) Water (m3) Fuelc (L) Fertilizer (g) Pesticide (g) Animal waste (kg) a

Land used for raising animals and growing animal feed. Water used for raising animals and growing animal feed. Total fuel includes gasoline and diesel used on the farm for agricultural and livestock production. Source: Sabat
e J, et al., 2015. Public Health Nutr. 18 (11), 2067–2073, with permission.

b c

livestock industry. It is estimated that feed production (for the livestock animals) uses 45 billion m3 of irrigation water (Kenny et al., 2009; Peters et al., 2010). We found that the production of 1 kg of protein from beef requires more than 10 times the amount of water compared to protein from beans (109 m3 vs 10 m3). However, chicken and eggs require less water than beef to yield 1 kg of protein; 11 and 14 m3 are needed for eggs and chicken, respectively (Sabat
e et al., 2015) (Table 2). Land use: Producing plant foods requires much less land than animalbased foods. The livestock industry, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, utilizes more than 2/3rds of all agricultural land and 30% of the land surface of the earth, for the purpose of producing feed (Eshel et al., 2014; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Of all the meatbased products, beef is the least resource efficient. Our study showed that the production of 1 kg of protein from beef utilizes 283 m2 of land while the production of 1 kg of protein from almonds and beans requires 21 and 16 m2 of land respectively. Producing beef protein requires 18 times more land area than bean protein. As for producing protein from eggs and chicken, it is much more efficient than beef but still utilizes more than twice the area of land compared to beans (Sabat
e et al., 2015) (Table 2).

Determinants of sustainable diets

191

Chemical use (fertilizers and pesticides): Producing plant foods requires much less fertilizer and pesticides compared to animal-based foods. Producing meat, on a yearly basis, uses around 6 million metric tons of N fertilizer, about 50% of the national total (Eshel et al., 2014). Our study showed that the differences between plant and animal proteins, when it comes to fertilizer requirements, are startling. The production of 1 kg of protein from beef needs 12 times the quantity of fertilizers compared to bean protein (1945 g vs 161 g). Production of chicken protein is much more efficient than that of beef when it comes to fertilizer use yet requires double that of bean protein (Sabat
e et al., 2015) (Table 2). In general, production of animal protein also uses much more pesticides compared to plant protein due to its extensive application on the crops for animal feed. Reijnders (2001) estimated that meat protein production utilizes more than six times the quantity of biocides compared to soybean protein. Our study showed that the production of 1 kg of protein from beef requires much more pesticides than that of 1 kg of bean protein (93 g vs 9 g), but about the same amount for the production of 1 kg of protein from almonds (Sabat
e et al., 2015) (Table 2).

Environmental impacts A diet high in meat products, especially beef, has major environmental impacts such as GHG emissions, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Climate change: Plant-based diets emit much less GHGs compared to meat-based diets. This, however, depends on the specific foods that comprise each dietary pattern. For instance, a plant-based diet high in dairy products might emit more GHGs than a meat-based diet in which the meat is mainly chicken or pork instead of beef. This signifies that the impact of dietary patterns on the climate change is based on its food composition. Plant-based diets that not only exclude all meats, but are also low in dairy and processed foods, contribute less GHG emissions compared to other dietary patterns. A study by Soret et al. (2014) showed that the mean annual GHG emissions were the lowest for vegetarians (788 kg CO2 eq.), intermediate for the semivegetarians (872 kg CO2 eq.), and highest for meat consumers (around 1113 kg CO2 eq.). Moreover, when taking the nonvegetarian diet as a reference, the vegetarian diet had a 29% and the semivegetarian diet had a 22% reduction in total GHG emissions. Researchers in the United Kingdom estimated GHG emissions of the diets of around 55,000 participants of the Epic Oxford study. The vegan diet produced only

192

Environmental nutrition

2.9 kg CO2 eq./day per 2000 kcal. GHG emissions grew progressively higher as more meat and animal products were incorporated into the diet. The diet of the high meat-eating group, people who ate more than 100 g of meat per day produced 7.2 kg of CO2 eq./2000 kcal, more than twice as much GHG emissions than vegans (Scarborough et al., 2014). These vast differences in GHGe are explained by the differences in the food composition of the diets. In a recent meta-analysis, meats, especially beef, had the highest GHG emissions of all foods, 26.6 kg CO2 eq./kg. Field-grown fruits and vegetables had the lowest emissions with 0.42 and 0.37 kg CO2 eq./kg product, respectively. Legumes, cereals, and tree nuts were also on the scale of low emissions with 0.5, 0.5, and 1.2 kg CO2 eq./kg, respectively (Clune et al., 2017). Biodiversity loss: Biodiversity loss, or the extinction of species, is due to the degradation of soil, emission of chemicals, and cutting of trees (deforestation) to expand the livestock industry. In the United States, most of the cropland’s soil is being lost on a yearly basis due to overgrazing which reduces quality of the soil and its capacity to produce vegetation (Dlamini et al., 2016). The excessive use of pesticides and phosphate fertilizers to grow crops for feeding livestock has also affected biodiversity. It damages the nonagricultural soil causing eutrophication of surface water with depletion of dissolved water, the excessive growth in algae, and the death of land and aquatic animal life (Etterson and Bennett, 2013; Mahmood et al., 2016; Tilman et al., 2001). Deforestation has been adopted in many areas of the world (e.g., Latin America) (Ibrahim et al., 2010), to grow feed for livestock (Hecht, 2005). Tropical forests are highly biodiverse and have the highest number or density of species per surface (Morris, 2010). Pollution: The production of meat-based diets causes more pollution than plant-based diets. For instance, the elevated application of pesticides and fertilizers leads to the contamination of surface and ground water (Edwards, 2013), air pollution (Cowling et al., 2001), and soil pollution (Reijnders and Soret, 2003). In traditional agriculture, animals and crops were raised in the same farm and manure was used to fertilize crops. However, industrial agriculture has separated animal farms (livestock) from crop farms. Most livestock is now raised in concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) where animals are raised in confinement and their manure is polluting the environment. The concentration of the large amounts of waste from these animals along

Determinants of sustainable diets

193

with other contaminants such as antibiotics and veterinary drugs, when discharged into waterways, are polluting the water and the soil. These chemicals could contribute to bacterial growth and could highly impact the microbial population dynamics in the soil and groundwater (Kim and Kim, 2012). The waste also causes nuisance odors such as ammonia (Delgado et al., 2001). Yet, current livestock waste management practices do not solve the problem of contamination of water resources from excessive nutrients, pathogens, and drugs (Burkholder et al., 2006). In our study, the production of 1 kg of protein from beef results in 105 kg of animal wastes; when it comes to producing1 kg of protein from chicken and eggs, it yields much less wastes (22 kg and 17 kg, respectively). The plant protein production, on the other hand, does not generate animal wastes (Sabat
e et al., 2015) (Table 2). Thus, plant-based diets are much more sustainable than meat-based diets in terms of efficiency and environmental impacts. They are more energy efficient as they require less input in the forms of water, land, chemical use, and fossil fuels. Plant-based diets are less taxing on the environment as they contribute to less pollution, GHG emissions, and biodiversity loss compared to meat-based diets.

Conclusion A sustainable diet comprises foods and food groups consumed in season, minimally processed, are mainly from plants, and are not wasted. The more a diet includes plant, whole and seasonal foods, and the less it contains animal, processed, and imported foods, the more it is sustainable. Yet these determinants do not equally define sustainability. Even though transportation type, whether the food is locally grown or imported, and the degree the food is processed affect diet sustainability, its primary determinant is the type of food. Whether the diet mainly comprises plant or animal-based foods is the chief factor that determines the extent of its sustainability. Eventually, the collective decisions of consumers play a major role in improving the sustainability of the food system. By purchasing and consuming foods in the amount sufficient enough to satisfy the nutritional needs, by decreasing the amount of food wasted, and by adopting plant-based diets comprising in-season and minimally processed foods, consumers could substantially decrease the environment footprint of the food system and contribute to a sustainable future.

194

Environmental nutrition

References Aiking, H., 2014. Protein production: planet, profit, plus people? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Suppl. 1), 483S–489S. Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., Rounsevell, M.D., 2017. Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agric. Syst. 153, 190–200. Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Normann, A., 2016. Consumer-related food waste: role of food marketing and retailers and potential for action. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 28 (3), 271–285. Baraldi, L.G., Steele, E.M., Canella, D.S., Monteiro, C.A., 2018. Consumption of ultraprocessed foods and associated sociodemographic factors in the USA between 2007 and 2012: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 8(3). e020574. Bernstein, L., Roy, J., Delhotal, K., Harnisch, J., Matsuhashi, R., Price, L., et al., 2007. Industry. In: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Brunner, T.A., Van der Horst, K., Siegrist, M., 2010. Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite 55 (3), 498–506. Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer, P., Heathcote, S., Kolpin, D., Thorne, P.S., Wichman, M., 2006. Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (2), 308–312. Burlingame, B., Dernini, S., 2012. Sustainable diets and biodiversity: directions and solutions for policy, research and action. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium. Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger, 3–5 November 2010, Rome, Italy. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Buzby, J.C., Farah-Wells, H.F., Hyman, J., 2014. The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. EIB-121, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Gonza´lez, A.D., 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (5), 1704S–1709S. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekstr€ om, M.P., Shanahan, H., 2003. Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 44 (2–3), 293–307. Cefic, E., 2011. Guidelines for Measuring and Managing CO2 Emission From Freight Transport Operations. Cefic Report 1, 1–18. Chapagain, A., James, K., 2011. The Water and Carbon Footprint of Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. Retrieved from https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/ Water-and-carbon-footprint-food-and-drink-waste-UK-2011_1.pdf. Chen, G.Q., Zhang, B., 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions in China 2007: inventory and input–output analysis. Energy Policy 38 (10), 6180–6193. Clune, S., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2017. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 766–783. Cowling, E., Galloway, J., Furiness, C., Barber, M., Bresser, T., Cassman, K., et al., 2001. Optimizing nitrogen management in food and energy production and environmental protection: summary statement from the Second International Nitrogen Conference. Sci. World J. 1, 1–9. Cu
ellar, A.D., Webber, M.E., 2010. Wasted food, wasted energy: the embedded energy in food waste in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (16), 6464–6469. Davis, S., Diegel, S., 2007. Transportation Energy Data Book, 26th ed. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ORNL-6978. Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S., Courbois, C., 2001. Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. Outlook Agric. 30 (1), 27–29.

Determinants of sustainable diets

195

Dlamini, P., Chivenge, P., Chaplot, V., 2016. Overgrazing decreases soil organic carbon stocks the most under dry climates and low soil pH: a meta-analysis shows. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 221, 258–269. Drewnowski, A., Darmon, N., Briend, A., 2004. Replacing fats and sweets with vegetables and fruits—a question of cost. Am. J. Public Health 94 (9), 1555–1559. Edwards, C., 2013. Environmental Pollution by Pesticides. vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media, New York. Edwards, P., Roberts, I., 2009. Population adiposity and climate change. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38 (4), 1137–1140. Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T., Milo, R., 2014. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (33), 11996–12001. Etterson, M.A., Bennett, R.S., 2013. Quantifying the effects of pesticide exposure on annual reproductive success of birds. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 9 (4), 590–599. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf. Guptill, A., Wilkins, J.L., 2002. Buying into the food system: trends in food retailing in the US and implications for local foods. Agric. Hum. Values 19 (1), 39–51. Harris, J.M., Shiptsova, R., 2007. Consumer demand for convenience foods: demographics and expenditures. J. Food Distrib. Res. 38 (3), 22. Hecht, S.B., 2005. Soybeans, development and conservation on the Amazon frontier. Dev. Chang. 36 (2), 375–404. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S., Walker, P., 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect. 110 (5), 445. Horvath, A., 2006. Environmental assessment of freight transportation in the US (11 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11 (4), 229–239. Ibrahim, M., Porro, R., Mauricio, R.M., 2010. Brazil and Costa Rica: deforestation and livestock expansion in the Brazilian Legal Amazon and Costa Rica: drivers, environmental degradation, and policies for sustainable land management. In: Gerber, P., Mooney, H.A., Dijkman, J., Tarawali, S., Haan, C.d. (Eds.), Livestock in a Changing Landscape, Volume 2: Experiences and Regional Perspectives, Island Press, Washington, USA, pp. 74–95. Jan, O., Tostivint, C., Turb
e, A., O’Connor, C., Lavelle, P., 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources—Summary Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. Johnson, R., 2014. The US trade situation for fruit and vegetable products. Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., USA, pp. 1–20. Kaput, J., Kussmann, M., Mendoza, Y., Coutre, R., Cooper, K., Roulin, A., 2015. Enabling nutrient security and sustainability through systems research. Genes Nutr. 10 (3), 12. Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., Maupin, M.A., 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344. 52 p. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/?mod¼article_inline. Kim, H.-S., Kim, K., 2012. Microbial and chemical contamination of groundwater around livestock mortality burial sites in Korea—a review. Geosci. J. 16 (4), 479–489. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489. Mahmood, I., Imadi, S.R., Shazadi, K., Gul, A., Hakeem, K.R., 2016. Effects of pesticides on environment. In: Plant, Soil and Microbes. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 253–269.

196

Environmental nutrition

Morris, R.J., 2010. Anthropogenic impacts on tropical forest biodiversity: a network structure and ecosystem functioning perspective. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365 (1558), 3709–3718. Neff, R.A., Spiker, M.L., Truant, P.L., 2015. Wasted food: US consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. PLoS One 10(6). e0127881. Okrent, A.M., Kumcu, A., 2016. US Households’ Demand for Convenience Foods. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Peters, G.M., Wiedemann, S.G., Rowley, H.V., Tucker, R.W., 2010. Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (3), 311–320. Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 (3), 660S–663S. Poti, J.M., Mendez, M.A., Ng, S.W., Popkin, B.M., 2015. Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 101 (6), 1251–1262. Qi, D., Roe, B.E., 2016. Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among US consumers. PLoS One 11(7). e0159250. Reijnders, L., 2001. In: Sabate, J. (Ed.), Environmental Impacts of Meat Production and Vegetarianism. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Reijnders, L., Soret, S., 2003. Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 (3), 664S–668S. Sabat
e, J., Soret, S., 2014. Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Suppl. 1), 476S–482S. Sabat
e, J., Sranacharoenpong, K., Harwatt, H., Wien, M., Soret, S., 2015. The environmental cost of protein food choices. Public Health Nutr. 18 (11), 2067–2073. Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., Key, T.J., 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim. Change 125 (2), 179–192. Serafini, M., Toti, E., 2016. Unsustainability of obesity: metabolic food waste. Front. Nutr. 3, 40. Soret, S., Mejia, A., Batech, M., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Harwatt, H., Sabat
e, J., 2014. Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 (Supplement 1), 490S–495S. Spiker, M.L., Hiza, H.A., Siddiqi, S.M., Neff, R.A., 2017. Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 117 (7), 1031–1040. e1022. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T.D., Castel, V., de Haan, C., 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food & Agriculture Organization, Canada. Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., et al., 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292 (5515), 281–284. Venkat, K., 2011. The climate change and economic impacts of food waste in the United States. Int. J. Food Syst. Dynam. 2 (4), 431–446. Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., Ingram, J.S., 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37 (1), 195. Wansink, B., Van Ittersum, K., 2007. Portion size me: downsizing our consumption norms. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 107 (7), 1103–1106. Wikstr€ om, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., Clune, S., 2014. The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies-a neglected topic. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 100–108.

CHAPTER 11

Can diets be both healthy and sustainable? Solving the dilemma between healthy diets versus sustainable diets Marco Springmann

Introduction Current diets are neither healthy nor sustainable. Dietary risk factors that describe unhealthy consumption patterns, such as diets low in fruits and vegetable and high in red and processed meat, are together responsible for the greatest health burden on mortality globally and in most regions (Forouzanfar et al., 2015). At the same time, food production is a significant driver of climate change (Smith et al., 2014; Vermeulen et al., 2012), biodiversity loss via land-use changes (Houghton, 2012; Ramankutty and Foley, 1999), and chemical pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011, 2012; Vitousek et al., 1997). Dietary choices have contributed to the crossing of several biophysical thresholds (or planetary boundaries) that describe the safe operating space for humanity (Rockstr€ om et al., 2009). It was estimated that planetary boundaries have been crossed for climate change, biodiversity loss/biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows related to nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, and humanity might soon approach the boundaries for global freshwater use, change in land use, and ocean acidification (Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014; Rockstr€ om et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). Indeed, the pressures of the food system on human health and the environment are expected to increase if socioeconomic changes toward Western consumption patterns continue as projected (Davis et al., 2016; Jalava et al., 2014; Springmann et al., 2016; Tilman and Clark, 2014). In addressing these challenges, a large body of literature has emerged that explores ways to reduce the environmental and health impacts of the food

Environmental Nutrition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00013-8

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

197

198

Environmental nutrition

system, both from the consumption (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016; Hallstr€ om et al., 2015; Joyce et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2016) and the production side (Smith et al., 2013, 2014). Here I summarize and contextualize the current state of the literature on sustainable diets and the impact of foods on the environment and human health. Sustainable diets have been defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as “those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations,” as well as being “protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources” (Burlingame et al., 2012). In the following, I primarily focus on the health and environmental aspects of this definition and discuss the health and environmental impacts of diets, dietary change, and food groups.

Review of studies on sustainable diets Several reviews of the sustainable-diet literature have recently been undertaken (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016; Hallstr€ om et al., 2015; Joyce et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2016). Most of the individual studies included in the reviews were case studies at the national level that assessed the environmental and health impacts associated with different dietary patterns. The studies differed with respect to the reference diet in a given region, the dietary scenarios analyzed, and the underlying footprint data used. Despite this, some general trends were observed: reductions in environmental impacts were greater, the greater the reduction in animal-based foods in the modeled diets (Table 1). Table 1 Overview of environmental and health impacts associated with dietary patterns Reductions (%) in Dietary pattern

Vegan Vegetarian Pescatarian Mediterranean Health guidelines

GHG emissions

45 (23–72) 31 (15–58) 28 (17–31) 10 (5–29) 12 ( 12 to 32)

Land use

Water use

55 (40–80) 51 (28–67) 39 (28–62) 27 (21–48) 20 (5–38)