According to research published in the journal Oceanography, there’s an opportunity to feed the world by farming fast-growing, low-resource, photosynthesizing algae on marginal coastal lands globally.
Nutrient-rich algae, farmed along coastlines in pounds of seawater pumped up from the ocean, could produce enough food to feed 10 billion people in the next 25 years — “while simultaneously reducing our demands for arable land and freshwater,” says Charles Greene, lead author on the new Oceanography study and Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University.
“He and his research team relied on GIS models to identify locations across the planet that are close to the sea, and have the right levels of sunlight to propel the growth of single-celled algae, which can grow 10 times faster than regular crops.
The researchers identified the most suitable locations in southern parts of the planet—which may help shift centers of global food production from the north to the south, the researchers believe. If produced across the identified area, algae alone could generate more than the total planetary protein demand projected for 2050—an amount of roughly 286.5 Mt per year. That’s in addition to providing a rich source of minerals and omega-3 fatty acids, among other things.
Algae could do this using one-tenth of the area required by conventional food sources to produce the same amount of food. Meanwhile, much of that land would be in places, like coastal desert environments, where it doesn’t compete with other uses.
The algae’s highly efficient growth could make it an attractive prospect for a food system that faces increasing constraints on land and on marine resources, the researchers argue. Farmed algae would also require less resources—no soil, no freshwater, and less fertilizer —than conventional crops, they show.
To illustrate this, they compared algae with the protein generated through global soybean cultivation. Producing the equivalent amount of protein from algae would save 160 billion cubic meters of freshwater—roughly the amount currently used to irrigate all crops across the US.
Figure 1. The land and freshwater footprints for the production of essential amino acids from various nutritional sources.
Meanwhile, because fertilizer applied to grow algae is contained within the seawater-fueled ponds, there’d be no excess runoff and the algae would instead use it all. Compared to global soybean farms, therefore, algae production would save around 164,000 tons of phosphate, or about 3.2% of current US fertilizer demand. All that is in addition to the emissions savings that would come with algae’s more efficient fertilizer and land use.
Some estimates predict we’ll need a 56% increase in food supply to feed the planet by 2050—requiring potentially vast amounts more land, water and fertilizers. But algae farming could provide a unique pressure-release valve for the environment, the authors say.
As for how to make algae palatable to consumers, Greene explains that when dried and powdered, the algae could be “added to the supply chain for meat substitutes, cheese substitutes, dairy substitutes, and baked-good substitutes. The marketed products will have the taste, look, smell, and texture of the foods that people have traditionally consumed.” He added that plenty of countries, especially in Asia, already consume algae as part of a regular diet. Algae additives are already part of several widely-eaten foods.
There are a few caveats the researchers recognize in their projections, such as algae’s huge nutrient demand, which would eat into global phosphorus reserves and may require alternatives. Rapidly-growing algae also absorb CO2 faster than it can diffuse from air into water, meaning additional CO2 would have to be pumped into algae ponds to aid growth — which could be costly in both energy and financial terms. These may prove to be big hurdles to overcome.
But whatever the case, we need to make some shifts away from our conventional food systems if we’re going to meet future challenges. Algae farming is one vision of how to do that—and it could contribute “significantly to reducing the carbon footprint of our food production system and the detrimental environmental impacts of agriculture,” Greene says.”
A new paper published in the journal Future Foods concludes that plant-based meat and dairy alternatives offer a healthier and more environmentally sustainable solution when compared with the animal products they are designed to replace (University of Bath, 2022).
The review analyzed the results of 43 studies. In completing the review, the author evaluated the environmental and health impact of plant-based foods. The researcher also looked at consumer attitudes, including how people felt about eating meat substitutes. For example, “One study found that almost 90% of consumers who ate plant-based meat and dairy were in fact meat-eaters or flexitarians; another found that plant-based products with a similar taste, texture, and price to processed meat had the best chance of replacing meat” (Bryant, 2022).
In this review, Bryant (2022) observed that plant-based animal product alternatives are generally preferable to animal products from an environmental perspective in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and noted that they do not contribute to the growing global health threats of antibiotic resistance or pandemic risk. In terms of energy use, swapping out meat for plant-based alternatives uses a similar or lesser amount of energy.
From a nutritional perspective, the author reported that, “Overall, the literature supports the view that plant-based animal product alternatives, compared to animal products, have lower levels of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories, but may have less or less bioavailable protein, iron, and B12″ (Bryant, 2022). He further noted that some plant-based animal product alternatives contain high levels of salt, but they also tend to be higher in fiber and a range of micronutrients than animal products.
“In summary, PBAPAs [plant-based animal product alternatives] tend to have favorable nutritional profiles compared to animal products, tend to perform relatively well for weight loss and muscle synthesis, and can be formulated to cater to specific health conditions. They can also provide cholesterol-lowering benefits and have benefits for gut health. Research to improve the healthiness of PBAPAs [plant-based animal product alternatives] has identified ingredients and processes to optimize protein and fiber content, improve vitamin content, and reduce antinutrient content. Further such research should address ways to increase protein, iron, and Vitamin B12 content while reducing salt content.”
Based on these results, the author concluded that plant-based animal product alternatives offer a healthier and more environmentally sustainable solution compared to animal products, which considers consumer preferences and behavior. He also stated that, “with further developments in processing and formulation, plant-based animal product alternatives have the potential to improve their nutritional profile even further, as well as improving across other metrics such as taste, texture, price, cooking properties, and sustainability. Additional research funding is of paramount importance to making these potential improvements a reality, and also to test early indications that these products offer health benefits when compared to their traditional counterparts.” (Bryant, 2022).
In another recent review published by Bunge et al. (2022), it is noted that, “the literature on PBAs [plant-based alternatives] sustainability is widespread, but there is a need to study the performance and implications of the growing market of seafood analogues. More analyses should should also be conducted comparing PBAs against other alternatives such as tofu or insects to determine the most sustainable protein and fat alternatives.”
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has put together a guide to assist consumers in choosing plant-based meat alternatives based on their nutritional value. You can download a detailed chart with their “Best Bites” and “Honorable Mentions” plant-based meats at: https://www.cspinet.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/november21_plantBasedMeatsChart.pdf
CSPI’s “11 Step-Guide” in choosing plant-based meats includes the following:
1. Pay attention to protein.
Typically, your plant meat is replacing beef, pork, chicken, turkey, or seafood. Look for our Best Bites. They have at least 10 grams of protein per serving (5 grams for breakfast sausages and bacon, which have smaller servings). Getting your protein elsewhere? Honorable Mentions have no protein minimum.
2. Think of your heart.
Most vegetable oils like sunflower and canola are high in healthy unsaturated fats. Too bad many newer plant meats are drenched in coconut or palm oil. Both are richer in saturated fats. We capped Best Bites and Honorable Mentions at 2½ grams of sat fat per serving (1 gram for breakfast meats).
3. Spare the sodium.
It’s tough to make tasty plant meat without a little help from salt. So Best Bites and Honorable Mentions aren’t exactly low in sodium. But our limits—no more than 400 milligrams (250 mg for breakfast meats)—weed out the worst offenders. That’s one more reason to load the rest of your plate with vegetables. Their potassium helps lower blood pressure.
4. Heads up for allergens.
If you need to avoid gluten, skip wheat meats like Field Roast and No Evil. Got peanut allergies? Mind your peas. “Peas are legumes,” notes Beyond Meat. “People with severe allergies to legumes like peanuts should be cautious when introducing pea protein into their diet because of the possibility of a pea allergy.” (Beyond contains pea protein.)
5. Check for “vegan.”
If you want to skip not just meat but dairy and eggs, look for “vegan” on the label. “Veggie” isn’t enough, since some contain egg whites or cheese.
6. Watch Quorn.
Some people report reactions—nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and occasionally hives or difficulty breathing—after eating Quorn. Products made from Quorn’s “mycoprotein” (a processed fungi) have been sold in the U.S. since 2002. With so many other options, we didn’t consider the brand for Best Bites or Honorable Mentions.
7. Shop around.
We found plant-based meats sold alongside ground beef, chicken tenders, fresh vegetables, tofu, frozen foods, you name it. Most stores don’t stock them all in one place.
Tip: Check the label to see if you can thaw that frozen package in the fridge (so it cooks faster) or toss uncooked leftovers in the freezer.
8. Hold on to your wallet.
Pound for pound, Beyond and Impossible can cost roughly twice as much as beef. Buying them “ground” instead of in 4 oz. patties saves a couple of bucks. And with ground, you can make smaller patties, which lowers the sat fat per serving.
Or mix 4 oz. of minced raw mushrooms into a 16 oz. pack of ground Beyond Meat. That stretches it to five or six burgers. (To keep the delicate patties intact, freeze them for 10 to 15 minutes before cooking them on the stovetop, not the grill.)
9. Keep in mind that Impossible & Beyond aren’t beans.
Alas, the most meat-like plant meats also come closest to beef healthwise. You’re better off eating largely unprocessed beans, nuts, tofu, or tempeh.
10. Hack the menu.
At many restaurants, hefty white-flour buns, sauces, and (sometimes) cheese or fries push Beyond and Impossible burgers into 1,000-calorie territory.
The Cheesecake Factory’s Impossible Burger, for example, hits 930 calories and nearly a full day’s worth of sodium (2,090 mg)…before you tack on a side of salad, fries (530 calories), etc. The chain’s SkinnyLicious version with a side salad has 560 calories and less sodium (1,520 mg).
No light menu? Go cheeseless. To cut refined carbs, get a lettuce wrap instead of a bun and a salad instead of fries.
11. Try, try, try again.
Impossible or Beyond? Gardein or Morningstar? Whether you’re shopping for burgers, meatballs, chick’n, or veggie bacon, here’s what to look for…plus some of our tasters’ favorite Best Bites, Honorable Mentions, and near misses.
Veggie burgers 2.0: Impossible, Beyond, and beyond…
Who makes a better-for-you burger: Beyond Meat or Impossible?
The short answer: Beyond.
Beyond vs. Impossible: Both have too much saturated fat (from coconut oil) for Best Bites, though the Beyond Burger has been slowly dialing it down. A 4 oz. patty has 5 grams of sat fat—less than the 7 grams in a McDonald’s Quarter Pounder beef patty and the 8 grams in Impossible.
Like beef, the Impossible Burger contains heme (but from a non-meat source). Heme may help form carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds in the gut, which could help explain why red-meat eaters have a higher risk of colorectal cancer. In contrast, Beyond Burgers are heme-free.
Which burgers are better than Beyond? Some Beyond copycats have replaced Beyond’s coconut oil with healthier fats.
Try Dr. Praeger’s Perfect Burger or Whole Foods 365 Plant-Based Patties. Both Best Bites are made with pea protein (like Beyond), but they use sunflower oil (Dr. Praeger) or canola oil (Whole Foods).
Bryant CJ, Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products. Future Foods 2022; 6:100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174.
Bunge CA, Wood A, Halloran A, et al. A systematic scoping review of the sustainability of vertical farming, plant-based alternatives, food delivery services and blockchain in food systems. Nature Food 2022; http://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00622-8
September 29th is designated as the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste. It is estimated that approximately 14% of food produced in the world is lost between harvest and retail, while an estimated 17% of total global food production is wasted. Saving just one-fourth of the food currently lost or wasted around the world could help feed more than 800 million people who are living in hunger as well as fight climate change (International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, 2022) as food loss and waste are responsible for ~ 8 -10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing to climate change (UNEP, 2021).
“Food loss and waste greatly undermine the sustainability of our food systems as when food is lost or wasted, all resources used to produce it — including water, land, energy, labor, and capital go to waste. It also negatively impacts food security and food availability and contributes to increasing the cost of food (International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, 2022).”
In 1945, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was established to defeat hunger in the world and they have made strides towards achieving this, including meeting up in December 2019 to collectively establish a day for the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, of which September 29 was chosen. The FAO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) drive the observance of the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste. With an estimated 91.6 million tons of food thrown away every year, China is the country that wastes the most food, followed by India with 68.8 million tons (International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, 2022).
“In the wake of how Covid-19 disrupted food systems, President Xi Jinping launched the “Clean Plate Campaign” to tackle consumer food waste in China. Apart from signifying the importance of food waste as a national issue, it reflected the growing recognition that a significant amount of food waste comes from consumers’ leftovers (Makov et al., 2020) (Wang et al., 2022).” “The UNEP food index estimates around 931 million tonnes of food waste was generated in 2019, 61% of which came from households, 26% from food service, and 13% from retail. This suggests that 17 percent of total global food production may be wasted (11 percent in households, 5 percent in food service, and 2 percent in retail) (UNEP, 2021). “
To investigate whether macro-level interventions implemented in staff cafeterias can help reduce food waste in the workplace and further facilitate pro-environmental behaviors in the household, researchers in Macau, China collaborated with a business specializing in measuring food waste through smart technologies, and a large hotel-casino chain in the hospitality sector in Macau.
“To measure the effects of environmental framing and anthropomorphism in the workplace, the researchers employed a difference-in-differences (DID) design where, in all the cafeterias, they gave fortnightly feedback on the reduction of food waste, and introduced environmental framing and anthropomorphic cues into the feedback in some of the sites. Anthropomorphism is defined as attributing human-like characteristics to non-human objects (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007)… Indeed, previous research shows that anthropomorphic cues boost pro-environmental behaviors like waste-sorting (Ahn, Kim, & Aggarwal, 2014) and that anthropomorphism increases consumers’ intentions to buy misshapen [i.e., imperfect] food products (Cooremans & Geuens, 2019; Shao, Jeong, Jang, & Xu, 2020). (Wang et al., 2022).”
The study design is summarized in Fig. 1 (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Detailed Study Design
In control site A, researchers planned to provide food waste feedback in rounds 1-5, but only managed to do so in rounds 3-5, as there was a one-month delay in installing the Winnow Sense system (smart bins) in site A due to logistical difficulties. In treatment site B, food waste feedback was given for all 5 rounds, while additional posters about the environmental benefits of reducing food waste were added in rounds 3-5. The same food waste feedback and environmental messages were given to treatment site C with the only difference that images (e.g., food, trees, and the globe) were anthropomorphized (see Figure 2 for exemplar posters) (Wang et al., 2022).
Figure 2: Exemplar Posters – Round 3
During the study, three staff cafeterias in different hotels received smart bins and fortnightly informational feedback on the amount of food they wasted. The researchers varied the type of feedback each site received to investigate if it can be communicated more effectively in some ways: feedback in site A solely illustrated how much food was wasted, whereas they framed feedback with environmental information without and with anthropomorphic cues (e.g., where the food icons had faces) in sites B and C respectively.
In addition to actual food waste data, the researchers collected an online survey of staff after the interventions were trialed. This combination of metrics enabled researchers to examine if actual food waste data corresponded with self-reported levels of effort to save food at work, and if there were any unintended impacts on efforts to reduce waste at home. The survey, importantly, also allowed them to identify micro-level psychological determinants (e.g., environmental identity, motivations, and beliefs) for saving food at work and home to analyze how they might interact with the macro-level contextual spillover effects (Wang et al., 2022).
The authors found that there were significantly greater reductions in food waste in the treatment sites than in the control site. More specifically, they reported that “a combination of multiple interventions achieved the best results in food waste reduction, such that the treatment site C which received the environmental feedback with anthropomorphism saw the most salient reduction in food waste during and after the campaign. Theoretically, this work takes forward past research on anthropomorphism and food consumption (Cooremans & Geuens, 2019; Shao, et al., 2020), and shows that anthropomorphism can reinforce the effects of environmental feedback in eliciting waste-reducing behaviors (Wang et al., 2022).”
Based on these results, the researchers concluded that, “food waste feedback provided together with environmental footprint information and anthropomorphic cues jointly contribute to reducing food waste at work and can have positive spillover effects on food saving behaviors as well as other waste-reduction actions at home.” The authors also concluded that these results help advance the emerging field of multi-level interventions in managing consumer food waste behaviors (Wang et al., 2022).
Below are some simple action steps from Today’s Dietitian to reduce food waste at the household level (share these tips with your family members and friends):
It’s easy for #RDs + clients alike to be overwhelmed by food waste, but fighting it is essential for people & planet. Christine McCullum-Gomez, PhD, RDN, LD, shares how to combat climate change + hunger by reducing #foodwaste across the supply chain. https://t.co/iBbFmVrjJwpic.twitter.com/QqpGITIzEL
— Today's Dietitian (@TodaysDietitian) June 19, 2020
Ask for smaller food portions. Serve smaller portions of food at home or share large dishes with friends and family at restaurants. • Love your leftovers. Instead of throwing leftovers away, use them as ingredients for the next day’s meal. In addition, store leftovers in the refrigerator or freezer within two hours of preparing a meal. • Create a shopping list and stick to it. Plan ahead for food purchases to prevent from buying too much food during a shopping trip. • Become a meal planner. Track and plan what you will eat each week before heading to the store. That way, you’ll know exactly what ingredients to buy to create meals and avoid buying food you don’t need. • Buy ‘ugly’ (imperfect) fruits and vegetables. Some food retailers and farmers’ markets sell irregularly shaped fruits and vegetables and those with small bruises or discoloration. If this produce goes unpurchased, some of it will be discarded as waste. Also, Misfits Market and Imperfect Foods offer sustainable food delivery services using misfit or imperfect produce. Learn more at: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/misfits-market-vs-imperfect-foods • Check your refrigerator. Set your refrigerator temperatures between 34˚ and 41˚ F (1˚ to 5˚ C) for maximum freshness and shelf life. • Don’t overfill the refrigerator with food. The refrigerator will use less energy, and you will be less likely to waste food they don’t eat. • Practice the “first in, first out” rule. Rotate the older food items in their fridge and cupboards from the back to the front, so the most recently purchased items go to the back. • Understand dates on food packages. Know the difference between “use by,” the date by which a food should be eaten, and “best before,” the date indicating that the food’s quality is best before that date. • Turn waste into compost. Compost is organic material you can add to the soil in your outdoor and indoor gardens to help plants grow. It helps soil retain moisture, decreases the need for chemical fertilizers, lowers methane gas emissions from landfills, and provides other benefits. You can begin by setting up a bin for food waste that can include fruit and vegetable peelings, but they’ll need additional components to complete the process. Visit www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home for more information. • Donate surpluses. Give surplus food to those in need. Contact food banks/food pantries and faith-based organizations in your communities and donate food (McCullum-Gomez, 2020).
References:
International Day of Food Loss and Waste, September 29, 2022. National Today. Available at:
In a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, researchers from the United Kingdom (UK) assessed the causal effect of carbon footprint labelling on individual meal choices in a university cafeteria setting using a large-scale field experiment. The study allowed the scientists explicitly explore whether carbon footprint labels can induce more climatarian food choices and simultaneously quantify potential emissions reductions that can be attained from such changes in food consumption patterns.
The experiment was conducted in partnership with five college cafeterias catering to students and staff at the University of Cambridge between October 2019 and March 2020. Carbon footprint labels were introduced at three of the five cafeterias on all cafeteria main meals served during an intervention period, while two cafeterias served as our control. The researchers collected baseline (pre-treatment) meal choice data as well as a post-intervention follow-up exit survey data. The final dataset consisted of over 80,000 individual dining decisions made by 2228 individuals.
Results from this large-scale field experiment indicate that carbon footprint labels led to a decrease in the probability of selecting a high-carbon footprint meal by approximately 2.7 percentage points with consumers substituting to mid-carbon impact meals. The researchers found no change in the market share of low-carbon meals, on average. The reduction in high-carbon footprint meals was driven by decreases in sales of meat meals while sales of mid-ranged vegan, vegetarian and fish meals all increased. The authors estimated that the introduction of carbon footprint labels was associated with a 4.3% reduction in average carbon emissions per meal.
Carbon Label: University Cafeteria
Based on these results, Lohmann et al. 2022 conclude that labels are an effective tool to leverage pro-environmental preferences in a cafeteria setting and promise considerable greenhouse (GHG) emission reductions at the individual level. And while this study is limited to the cafeteria setting, the authors assert that carbon labels will have a much larger role to play in a broader set of food consumer choices, in particular supermarket purchase decisions (because the volume is much larger than cafeteria choices). These authors point out that additional experiments in these food choice settings with non-student samples will be important to solidify our understanding of how carbon footprint labels affect consumer choices.
Moreover, the authors noted that, “labels allow for product differentiation on sustainability grounds and hence provide clear signals to consumers who hold environmental preferences. Product differentiation aids consumer choices and in turn may bring about significant changes on the producer side if market dynamics continue their current trend in favor of low-carbon alternatives and increasing climatarian dietary preferences. “
“For instance, labels may incentivize suppliers to substitute high-carbon alternatives in favor of lower-carbon alternatives, which could result in substantial decreases in food production emissions. If future carbon footprint labels are based on full life-cycle assessments capturing emissions from ‘farm to fork’, this could further encourage innovations along the entire supply chain.” The researchers observed that the “results are particularly relevant under the current policy climate in the UK, the EU and elsewhere where pilot voluntary carbon food labelling schemes are emerging (e.g. the UK’s Carbon Trust label) and advanced discussions are underway for introducing carbon food labels as part of many countries’ decarbonisation agendas.
This momentum is partly a reaction to an increasing consumer shift towards climatarian diets (i.e. diets aimed at reducing the carbon footprint). Yet, the reality remains that rolling out carbon food labels across the entire food industry is an immensely challenging and complex endeavour, while at the same time, causal hard evidence-based studies on the impact of these labels on actual behavior are lacking (Rondoni and Grasso, 2021).”
The paper by Lohmann et al. (2022) provides one of the first large-scale field experiments that specifically assessed impacts of carbon labeling on behavioral change within a university cafeteria setting in a causal manner. The authors found that carbon footprint labels on food could induce carbon reducing behavioral changes. However, as stated by these authors, “The challenges that remain are how to scale up the use of such labels in a manner that is unambiguous to consumers and also cost-effective.” Furthermore, Faccioli et al. (2022) noted that while information on the carbon characteristics of a food is relevant for consumers in making food choices, use of a combined carbon and health tax policy may be necessary to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Faccioli, M., Law, C., Caine, C.A. et al. Combined carbon and health taxes outperform single-purpose information or fiscal measures in designing sustainable food policies. Nat Food 3, 331–340 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00482-2
Replacing meat with certain types of sustainably sourced seafood could help people to reduce their carbon footprints without compromising on nutrition, finds an analysis of dozens of marine species that are consumed worldwide. The study, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment (Bianchi et al., 2022), “suggests that farmed bivalves — shellfish such as mussels, clams and oysters — and wild-caught, small, surface-dwelling (pelagic) fish, which include anchovies, mackerel and herring, generate fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and are more nutrient dense than beef, pork or chicken.”
The research aimed to “do a better job of understanding the climate impacts of seafood through the lens of very diverse nutritional qualities”, says co-author Peter Tyedmers, an ecological economist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.
“The findings echo those of previous studies, including work by members of Tyedmers’ group that focused on seafood consumed in Sweden (Hallström et al., 2019). This time, the researchers wanted to include a more diverse, global range of seafood, says Tyedmers.”
‘Blue’ diet benefits
“Food production accounts for roughly one-third of global greenhouse-gas emissions, mostly of methane and carbon dioxide (Crippa et al., 2021). More than half of those emissions are driven by livestock farming (Xu et al., 2021). Plant-based diets offer one lower-impact alternative to eating meat, but solutions tend to overlook the benefits of seafood-based, or ‘blue’, diets, the study (Bianchi et al., 2022), says.
Using 41 seafood species, the researchers established a nutrient-density score that accounted for essential nutrients, such as certain fats and vitamins. The species surveyed included farmed and wild-caught fish, crustaceans, bivalves and cephalopods (the group that includes octopus and squid). The team then used available emissions data for 34 of those species to compare their nutrient density with the emissions associated with their production or capture.
Half of the seafood species offered more nutritional bang for their buck in terms of emissions (See Figure 1 below). Wild-caught pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), along with wild-caught, small pelagic fish and farmed bivalves, were the best choices for nutrient-dense, low-emissions protein sources. Whitefish such as cod (Gadus sp.) also had a low climate impact, but were among the least nutrient-dense food. Wild-caught crustaceans had the highest emissions, with a carbon footprint rivalled only by that of beef. The authors note that their emissions data do not include ‘post-production’ emissions, such as those generated by refrigeration or transport.”
Figure 1: Seafood by relative greenhouse gas emissions (%) & relative nutritional score(%)
“The analysis adds more perspective to the role of seafood in food systems, says Zach Koehn, a marine scientist at the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions in California. He adds that one hurdle in applying this research will be the need to make seafood more widely available in an affordable way, because those who could benefit the most from nutrient-dense foods might not have access to it.”
Tyedmers agrees that access to diverse diets is a privilege. “Every opportunity there is to substitute seafood for beef is a small climate win,” he says. “It doesn’t have to be every meal.”
Source: Coleman J. Eat more fish: when switching to seafood helps – and when it doesn’t. Nature News, September 13, 2022. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02928-w
Citations:
1. Bianchi, M., Hallström, E., Parker, R.W.R. et al. Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice. Commun Earth Environ3, 188 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00516-4
2. Hallström E, Bergman K, Mifflin K, et al. Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 402-411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229.
3. Crippa, M, Solazzo, E, Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food2, 198–209 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
4. Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat Food2, 724–732 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
A recent commentary article published BMJ Global Health (2022) points out that, “The global industrial food system and consequent rapid rise of ultra-processed foods is severely impairing biodiversity. Yet although the impacts of existing land use and food production practices on biodiversity have received much attention, the role of ultra-processed foods has been largely ignored. An increasingly prominent ‘globalized diet’, characterized by an abundance of branded ultra-processed food products made and distributed on an industrial scale, comes at the expense of the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of traditional foods, cuisines, and diets, comprising mostly fresh and minimally processed foods. Ultra-processed foods are typically manufactured using ingredients extracted from a handful of high-yielding plant species, including maize, wheat, soy and oil seed crops. Animal-sourced ingredients used in many ultra-processed foods are often derived from confined animals fed on the same crops. The contribution of ultra-processed foods to agrobiodiversity loss is significant, but so far has been overlooked in global food systems summits, biodiversity conventions and climate change conferences. Ultra-processed foods need to be given urgent and high priority in the agendas of such meetings, and policies and action agreed.”
Increased consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to higher greenhouse gas emissions as well as negative impacts on the nation’s water footprint and ecological footprint, such as deforestation, by a study that charted 30 years of dietary change in Brazil (da Silva et al, 2021; Askew, 2021). The authors of this study concluded that, “The environmental effects of the Brazilian diet have increased over the past three decades along with increased effects from ultra-processed foods. This means that dietary patterns in Brazil are becoming potentially more harmful to human and planetary health. Therefore, a shift in the current trend would be needed to enhance sustainable healthy food systems.” (da Silva et al., 2021).
Discussions related to the food system and biodiversity are important and timely as the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) will meet in Montreal, Canada from December 7-19, 2022. To learn more about the upcoming COP15 go to:
The food system and biodiversity: what can consumers do to make a difference?
In a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers simulated the potential effects of dietary shifts and food waste reduction on the biodiversity impacts of food consumption in the United States. The authors found that, “Adopting the [EAT-Lancet] Planetary Health diet or the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)–recommended vegetarian diet nationwide would reduce the biodiversity footprint of food consumption. However, increases in the consumption of foods grown in global biodiversity hotspots both inside and outside the United States, especially fruits and vegetables, would partially offset the reduction…. Simply halving food waste would benefit global biodiversity more than half as much as all Americans simultaneously shifting to a sustainable diet.”
“Combining food waste reduction with the adoption of a sustainable diet [EAT-Lancet planetary health diet or USDA-recommended vegetarian diet] could reduce the biodiversity footprint of US food consumption by roughly half. Species facing extinction because of unsustainable food consumption practices could be rescued by reducing agriculture’s footprint; diet shifts and food waste reduction can help us get there (Read et al., 2022).”
da Silva, JT, Garzillo JFG, Rauber F, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and ecological footprint of food purchases according to their degree of processing in Brazilian metropolitan areas: a time-series study from 1987 to 2018. Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5: e775–85.
Leite FHM, Khandpur N, Andrade GC, et al. Ultraprocessed foods should be central to global food systems dialogue and action on biodiversity. BMJ Global Health 2022;7:e008269. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2021-008269
Read QD, Hondula KL, Muth MK, et al. Biodiversity effects of food system sustainability actions from farm to fork. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2022;119(5):e2113884119.
An analysis of 57,000 foods published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) “reveals which [foods] have the best and worst environmental impacts. A team of researchers used an algorithm to estimate how much of each ingredient was in thousands of products sold in major UK supermarket chains. The scientists then gave food items an environmental-impact score out of 100 — with 100 being the worst — by combining the impacts of the ingredients in 100 grams of each product. They considered several factors, including greenhouse-gas emissions and land use.
Healthier foods tended to have low environmental impacts, the team found. Products containing lamb and beef — such as ready-made meat pies — had the most serious environmental impact. The lowest-impact foods tended to be made with plants and included bread products, fruits, vegetables, grains and sugar-rich drinks.” See ‘Food For Thought’ (Figure 1) below. “There were some notable exceptions: both nuts and seafood had a good nutrition score but relatively high environmental impacts.”
Figure 1. Food for Thought
Keep in mind that previously published analyses have shown there are varying environmental impacts of nuts and seafood, depending on the type of nut and seafood. In an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2022), Rose and colleagues found that substituting peanuts for almonds in self-selected diets in the U.S. reduced the water scarcity footprint by 30 percent. In the same study, replacing a serving of shrimp with cod reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent. However, while whitefish – such as cod – have a low climate impact, they are among the least nutrient-dense seafood. In contrast, wild-caught pink salmon and sockeye salmon, along with wild-caught, small pelagic fish (e.g., anchovies, mackerel, herring) and farmed bivalves (e.g., mussels, clams, oysters), are the best choices for nutrient-dense, low-emissions protein sources (Bianchi et al., 2022). Furthermore, a study by Dr. Jessica Gephart and colleagues published in Nature (2021) reported substantial differences in the amount (pounds) of CO2 equivalents by type of seafood (per serving) (See Figure 2 below). To learn more, see: https://www.cspinet.org/article/which-seafood-causes-least-damage-planet-its-complicated
Figure 2. Fishing for greener seafood
Aim for seafood with low greenhouse gas emissions. Farmed fish have other costs such as nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, but they’re typically lower than that of chicken.
Photo: Source: Nature 597: 360, 2021.
References:
Clark M, Springmann M, Rayner M, et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2120584119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120584119
Bianchi, M., Hallström, E., Parker, R.W.R. et al. Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice. Commun Earth Environ 3, 188 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00516-4
Rose D, Willits-Smith AM, Heller MC. Single-item substitutions can substantially reduce the carbon and water scarcity footprints of US diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 115(2), 378-387 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab338
A new perspective article published in the journal Nature Sustainability describes food systems designed not by the logic of growth such as efficiency and extraction, but by principles of sufficiency, regeneration, distribution, commons, and care. It argues that food systems can instead be the foundation of healthy communities, ecologies, and economies. “For this agenda-setting article, we’ve reviewed the vast experience of diverse farmers, food cooperatives, home gardeners, alternative retailers, and other endeavors to re-claim what sustainability for food systems means in high and low-income nations,” the authors state.
The authors call for policymakers, researchers and community groups worldwide to rethink their approach to developing new solutions beyond the current “growth paradigm.” They compare the current growth paradigm, which they argue is exploitative of humans and animals, ecologically harmful, dependent on fossil fuels, and controlled by a small number of multi-national corporations, with an alternative paradigm that is based on a post-growth agrifood system.
“We have seen what food systems designed to achieve relentless economic growth and profit maximization do to the environment, farming communities, and our health, and it’s not good,” says Dr. Steven McGreevy, an assistant professor of institutional urban sustainability studies at the University of Twente.
Post-growth food system
“Fortunately, there are countless examples from around the world of post-growth agrifood system elements in action. We need to support these models where they exist, and rediscover, transfer, or further develop them where appropriate,” says McGreevy.
The authors identify post-growth agrifood system endeavors already in action around the world including:
Food production: How the adoption of agroecological farming and gardening into the current food systems can enhance biodiversity, maintain fertile soils, and improve system resilience to social and ecological shocks. For more information on the benefits of agroecology, view the new book by Dr. Stephen Gliessman and colleagues titled, Agroecology: Leading The Transformation To a Just and Sustainable Food System, 4th ed. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2022) (see book cover below).
Food business and trade: Community-based business models such as cooperatives and benefit corporations can anchor sustainability in businesses and prioritize the health and well-being of the environment and the public.
Food culture: Closer relationships with food and the processes which it goes through to reach people can create a culture of appreciation in which we value food as a “commons” and the people working in the agrifood system.
Food system governance: Food is connected to multiple siloes/sectors of governance—agriculture, public health, land-use planning, education, tourism, etc.—that are often working independently, rather than working together in an integrative way. “Food policy councils (FPCs) are one example of new governance structures that are inclusive and representative of diverse public and private stakeholders and cut across multiple sectors of policy expertise related to food.”
New research agenda
According to the authors of this study, “the conventional wisdom of mainstream sustainability science–including its underlying logic of economic growth—is fixated on narrow solution space: increasing production efficiency, high-tech innovation and individual behavior change.”
To break free of these intellectual constraints, thee authors argue that “the redesign of the global agrifood system should be supported by a coordinated education and a new research agenda that challenges conventional wisdom and focuses on understanding and developing diverse solutions outside of the growth paradigm.”
Similarly, an article by McCullum and colleagues (2005) published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association provides dietetics professionals with a three-stage continuum of evidence-based strategies and activities that applies a food systems approach to building food security within communities.
“Stage 1 creates small but significant changes to existing food systems through such strategies as identifying food quality and pricing inequities in low-income neighborhoods and educating consumers regarding both the need and the possibilities for alternative food systems. Stage 2 stabilizes and augments change for food systems in transition by developing social infrastructure through multisector partnerships and networks and fostering participatory decision-making and initial policy development [e.g., serving on food policy councils]. Based on these changes, stage 3 involves advocacy and integrated policy instruments to redesign food systems for sustainability. Data collection, monitoring, and evaluation are key components of all stages of the community food security continuum.”
McGreevy, S.R., Rupprecht, C.D.D., Niles, D. et al. Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nat Sustain (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5
New research published in the journal Food Policy examined the effectiveness and consequences of using carbon taxes on food purchases to contribute to the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) reduction target for 2025. The researchers found that “carbon taxes on food purchases decrease GHGEs from the agricultural and food sectors by 1.9 to 4.8 percent and generate up to $839 billion 2012 dollars social welfare gain per year due to avoided GHGEs-related external costs.” However, the authors also reported that “tradeoffs exist among climate, nutritional and distributional goals. Food instance, the most effective policy in reducing GHGs is regressive. Moreover, the quantity of health-promoting nutrients falls significantly in almost all scenarios.”
Based on these results, the authors concluded that, “the use of carbon taxes alone may not be the most effective way to reduce GHGEs from U.S. food purchases.” “[A]dditional policies, such as subsidies on less carbon intensive foods, may be needed to encourage consumers of all income level[s] to adopt more sustainable diets without increasing health and social inequalities.”
How sustainable is the city where you live? The 5th edition of the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index “provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of urban sustainability and how it is the key to unlocking prosperity in cities and improving quality of life.” More specifically, the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index provides an overall ranking of 100 global cities based on 51 metrics across 26 indicators themes, arrayed under the 3 different pillars of sustainability: planet (environmental), people (social), and profit (economic).
Overall, the following cities ranked the highest: 1) Oslo, 2) Stockholm, 3) Tokyo, 4) Copenhagen, and 5) Berlin. On the planet pillar, the highest ranked cities are: 1) Oslo, 2) Paris, 3) Stockholm, 4) Copenhagen, and 5) Berlin. On the people pillar, the highest ranked cities are: 1) Glasgow, 2) Zurich, 3) Copenhagen, 4) Seoul, and 5) Singapore. And on the profit pillar, the highest ranked cities are: 1) Seattle, 2) Atlanta, 3) Boston, 4) San Francisco, and 5) Pittsburgh. See the link below to access the full report and learn more about the factors that contribute to a sustainable city.
Sustainable RDN 