J Poore1,2, T Nemecek3. 1. Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK. joseph.poore@queens.ox.ac.uk. 2. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. 3. Agroscope, Agroecology and Environment Research Division, LCA Research Group, CH-8046 Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
Food's environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.
Food's environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.
Authors: Pauline Fd Scheelbeek; Cami Moss; Thomas Kastner; Carmelia Alae-Carew; Stephanie Jarmul; Rosemary Green; Anna Taylor; Andy Haines; Alan D Dangour Journal: Nat Food Date: 2020-11-09
Authors: Emma E Garnett; Andrew Balmford; Chris Sandbrook; Mark A Pilling; Theresa M Marteau Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Elisa Oteros-Rozas; Adriana Ruiz-Almeida; Mateo Aguado; José A González; Marta G Rivera-Ferre Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Benjamin S Halpern; Richard S Cottrell; Julia L Blanchard; Lex Bouwman; Halley E Froehlich; Jessica A Gephart; Nis Sand Jacobsen; Caitlin D Kuempel; Peter B McIntyre; Marc Metian; Daniel D Moran; Kirsty L Nash; Johannes Többen; David R Williams Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Carl Folke; Henrik Österblom; Jean-Baptiste Jouffray; Eric F Lambin; W Neil Adger; Marten Scheffer; Beatrice I Crona; Magnus Nyström; Simon A Levin; Stephen R Carpenter; John M Anderies; Stuart Chapin; Anne-Sophie Crépin; Alice Dauriach; Victor Galaz; Line J Gordon; Nils Kautsky; Brian H Walker; James R Watson; James Wilen; Aart de Zeeuw Journal: Nat Ecol Evol Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 15.460