Brittany Kovacs1, Lindsey Miller2, Martin C Heller3, Donald Rose4. 1. Foundation for International Medical Relief of Children, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA. 2. Healthy Eating Research, Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. 3. Center for Sustainable Systems, School for Environment & Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 4. Tulane Nutrition, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA. diego@tulane.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Do the environmental impacts inherent in national food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) vary around the world, and, if so, how? Most previous studies that consider this question focus on a single country or compare countries' guidelines without controlling for differences in country-level consumption patterns. To address this gap, we model the carbon footprint of the dietary guidelines from seven different countries, examine the key contributors to this, and control for consumption differences between countries. METHODS: In this purposive sample, we obtained FBDG from national sources for Germany, India, the Netherlands, Oman, Thailand, Uruguay, and the United States. These were used to structure recommended diets using 6 food groups: protein foods, dairy, grains, fruits, vegetables, and oils/fats. To determine specific quantities of individual foods within these groups, we used data on food supplies available for human consumption for each country from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's food balance sheets. The greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) used to produce the foods in these consumption patterns were linked from our own database, constructed from an exhaustive review of the life cycle assessment literature. All guidelines were scaled to a 2000-kcal diet. RESULTS: Daily recommended amounts of dairy foods ranged from a low of 118 ml/d for Oman to a high of 710 ml/d for the US. The GHGE associated with these two recommendations were 0.17 and 1.10 kg CO2-eq/d, respectively. The GHGE associated with the protein food recommendations ranged from 0.03 kg CO2-eq/d in India to 1.84 kg CO2-eq/d in the US, for recommended amounts of 75 g/d and 156 g/d, respectively. Overall, US recommendations had the highest carbon footprint at 3.83 kg CO2-eq/d, 4.5 times that of the recommended diet for India, which had the smallest footprint. After controlling for country-level consumption patterns by applying the US consumption pattern to all countries, US recommendations were still the highest, 19% and 47% higher than those of the Netherlands and Germany, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite our common human biology, FBDG vary tremendously from one country to the next, as do the associated carbon footprints of these guidelines. Understanding the carbon footprints of different recommendations can assist in future decision-making to incorporate environmental sustainability in dietary guidance.
BACKGROUND: Do the environmental impacts inherent in national food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) vary around the world, and, if so, how? Most previous studies that consider this question focus on a single country or compare countries' guidelines without controlling for differences in country-level consumption patterns. To address this gap, we model the carbon footprint of the dietary guidelines from seven different countries, examine the key contributors to this, and control for consumption differences between countries. METHODS: In this purposive sample, we obtained FBDG from national sources for Germany, India, the Netherlands, Oman, Thailand, Uruguay, and the United States. These were used to structure recommended diets using 6 food groups: protein foods, dairy, grains, fruits, vegetables, and oils/fats. To determine specific quantities of individual foods within these groups, we used data on food supplies available for human consumption for each country from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's food balance sheets. The greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) used to produce the foods in these consumption patterns were linked from our own database, constructed from an exhaustive review of the life cycle assessment literature. All guidelines were scaled to a 2000-kcal diet. RESULTS: Daily recommended amounts of dairy foods ranged from a low of 118 ml/d for Oman to a high of 710 ml/d for the US. The GHGE associated with these two recommendations were 0.17 and 1.10 kg CO2-eq/d, respectively. The GHGE associated with the protein food recommendations ranged from 0.03 kg CO2-eq/d in India to 1.84 kg CO2-eq/d in the US, for recommended amounts of 75 g/d and 156 g/d, respectively. Overall, US recommendations had the highest carbon footprint at 3.83 kg CO2-eq/d, 4.5 times that of the recommended diet for India, which had the smallest footprint. After controlling for country-level consumption patterns by applying the US consumption pattern to all countries, US recommendations were still the highest, 19% and 47% higher than those of the Netherlands and Germany, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite our common human biology, FBDG vary tremendously from one country to the next, as do the associated carbon footprints of these guidelines. Understanding the carbon footprints of different recommendations can assist in future decision-making to incorporate environmental sustainability in dietary guidance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carbon footprint; FAO food balance sheet; Food-based dietary guidelines; Global warming; Greenhouse gas emissions; dataFIELD
Authors: Boyd A Swinburn; Vivica I Kraak; Steven Allender; Vincent J Atkins; Phillip I Baker; Jessica R Bogard; Hannah Brinsden; Alejandro Calvillo; Olivier De Schutter; Raji Devarajan; Majid Ezzati; Sharon Friel; Shifalika Goenka; Ross A Hammond; Gerard Hastings; Corinna Hawkes; Mario Herrero; Peter S Hovmand; Mark Howden; Lindsay M Jaacks; Ariadne B Kapetanaki; Matt Kasman; Harriet V Kuhnlein; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Bagher Larijani; Tim Lobstein; Michael W Long; Victor K R Matsudo; Susanna D H Mills; Gareth Morgan; Alexandra Morshed; Patricia M Nece; An Pan; David W Patterson; Gary Sacks; Meera Shekar; Geoff L Simmons; Warren Smit; Ali Tootee; Stefanie Vandevijvere; Wilma E Waterlander; Luke Wolfenden; William H Dietz Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Walter Willett; Johan Rockström; Brent Loken; Marco Springmann; Tim Lang; Sonja Vermeulen; Tara Garnett; David Tilman; Fabrice DeClerck; Amanda Wood; Malin Jonell; Michael Clark; Line J Gordon; Jessica Fanzo; Corinna Hawkes; Rami Zurayk; Juan A Rivera; Wim De Vries; Lindiwe Majele Sibanda; Ashkan Afshin; Abhishek Chaudhary; Mario Herrero; Rina Agustina; Francesco Branca; Anna Lartey; Shenggen Fan; Beatrice Crona; Elizabeth Fox; Victoria Bignet; Max Troell; Therese Lindahl; Sudhvir Singh; Sarah E Cornell; K Srinath Reddy; Sunita Narain; Sania Nishtar; Christopher J L Murray Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul Behrens; Jessica C Kiefte-de Jong; Thijs Bosker; João F D Rodrigues; Arjan de Koning; Arnold Tukker Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Martin C Heller; Amelia Willits-Smith; Robert Meyer; Gregory A Keoleian; Donald Rose Journal: Environ Res Lett Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 6.793