sciencesearch.defra.gov.uksciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/...(FO0430)FINAL.docx · Web viewin consumer diet, i.e. not the total (attributional) impact of a static characterised set of

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team)E-mail: [email protected]

Evidence Project Final Report

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The Evidence Project Final Report is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra websiteAn Evidence Project Final Report must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code FO0430

2. Project title

Evidence to define the sustainability of a healthy diet

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Institute of Food ResearchUniversity of East AngliaSIK – the Swedish Institute of Food and BiotechnologyGene Rowe EvaluationsUniversity of Kent

54. Total Defra project costs £ 86,591(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................. October 2010

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 20

mailto:[email protected]

end date.................. November 2011


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that

they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the intelligent

non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

The current topical focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may promote behaviour change which is environmentally beneficial from the GHG emissions viewpoint, but unintentionally overlook other very important impacts, both positive and negative. Hence, a “consequential” approach to life cycle analysis is considered to be the most appropriate route to evaluating the impact of dietary change, augmented by using a “checklist” to ensure that change between elements of the diet does not lead to unintended consequences in other attributes of sustainability e.g. changes in biodiversity or working conditions.

A consequential lifecycle assessment approach is best used if the goal is to understand the impact (or consequences) of a change in consumer diet, i.e. not the total (attributional) impact of a static characterised set of food chains. Where a whole set of foods are to be promoted by policy (such as eat more pulses and vegetables) over another set (e.g. reduce meat consumption), an assessment of the impact of the change in the demand for their respective food chains will be very complex. The impacts may result from consequences that are both direct and indirect. For example, substantial changes in the demands for these foods could alter direct land and resource use, but also changes in market price signals may indirectly impact upon commodity demand and land use resources elsewhere as a consequence. These indirect environmental impacts are not captured by attributional methods. Characterising and evaluating the marginal difference in impacts from many individual food chains even if crudely grouped into various ‘eat less’ and ‘eat more’ (‘meats’, ‘vegetables’, etc.) scenarios, to estimate the cumulative impact would be very time demanding and not without significant methodological challenges.

Finally, it is imperative to ensure that food losses and waste disposal impacts along the food chain are accounted for in all life cycle studies of food products particularly in the light of the recent FAO (Gustavsson et al, 2011) and WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme, 2009; 2010 a&b) reports, which highlight the high proportion of food wasted.

IntroductionOur food system and diet strongly influence our health and the environment and there is great pressure to ensure that our food production and consumption is both health-promoting and sustainable. It is also necessary to provide consumers clear and consistent information on the impact of our food choices.

Although there is no clear cut definition of “sustainability”, it is generally accepted that there are three “pillars” of importance: environmental, economic and social. A sustainable diet has many attributes across


these pillars and there may be synergies and trade-offs between them.

Policies on sustainable consumption need to be underpinned by research to provide the necessary evidence base. The aim of this study has been to identify gaps in the knowledge base by defining and evaluating food chains that contribute to healthy diets (as described by the eatwell plate) and to evaluate the nature, extent and robustness of evidence for their attributes of sustainability.

MethodologyThe Project Consortium and an external panel of experts have reviewed information sources to identify evidence, data, guidance and metrics readily available to define the environmental, social and economic sustainability attributes of a healthy diet (as represented by the eatwell plate). Sources included academic theses, reviews and reports, book chapters and company information/websites as well as personal communications. [It is important to note that the project was not evaluating established guidance on healthy eating].

On the basis of published literature and expert opinion from members of the steering group and members of the project team’s research experience, the following sustainability attributes were chosen for consideration:

Sustainability attributes examinedEnvironmental Economic Social

Global warming potential Eutrophication potential Acidification potential Ozone depletion potential Photochemical ozone creation

potential Biotic resource use / depletion Abiotic resource use /

depletion Ecotoxicity potential Human toxicity potential Land use Reported energy Water resource Biodiversity

Land use

Production

Prices

Value of output

Employment

Trade

Health and welfare (perceived and real), with respect to a) food safety and b) nutrition

Ethics, with respect to a) inequity (amongst social groups) and b) animal health/welfare

Working conditions, with respect to employment conditions and worker safety

Societal dynamics, with respect to community cohesion, education, landscape

Results and discussionEvidence relevant to assessing the environmental sustainability of a healthy diet

The study focused predominantly on evaluating evidence from life cycle assessment studies, a large and growing body of evidence. The results demonstrate that

for all eatwell food groups, the system boundaries are generally positioned towards the farm gate, and very few studies extend down the supply chain as far as the consumer.

There is a shortage of food specific LCA studies which extend the boundary to include information on distribution, retail and consumption and waste as part of a full life cycle of a food product. Data on food losses at retail and consumer habits specific to food types would be useful in understanding the impacts of 1kg of food type consumed, rather than just 1kg food type produced.

The four most commonly evaluated attributes were GWP, EP, AP and RE. The widest consideration of attributes was evident in the “Fruit and Vegetables” food group.

The results are consistent with a commonly accepted view that generally larger values are reported by studies on red meat production for GWP than those reported for vegetable production. However, since each food group in the Eatwell Plate contains a considerable diversity of food products, a considerable range in the reported values of environmental burdens are evident in the eatwell food groups. This is most apparent in the non dairy protein food group. To add another layer of complexity, wide ranges in reported values were found in studies on specific foods, this is apparent for meats but also some examples are evident in fruit and vegetables. The lack of transparency of the studies – details of methodologies and data sources etc. - made exact reasons for variations in reported values difficult to interpret but some of the key reasons are summarised below.

Variation in reported burdens for specific food commodities

The relatively large variation in reported burdens for specific meats appear to be due to methodological factors. For example, variations within the impact values reported for studies on beef production were due


to differences in how burdens were allocated to expensive cuts of meat, whilst some studies use methodologies for soil emissions that are not used by other studies. The range would make conclusions for quantifying environmental burdens of meat in healthy diets problematic. In fruits and vegetables however, though some variation is still likely to be caused by differences in the goals and scopes of the studies, methodologies, the setting of boundaries, assumptions, and data quality, relatively greater GWP reported appear to be from differences in production systems (e.g. comparing seasonal production with the growing fruits out of season under glass or air freighting fresh produce).

Variation in reported burdens within food groups

In addition to methodological differences the relatively large differences in reported burdens between some types of meat & meat products (e.g. for chicken and beef) would appear to be explained by intrinsic differences in animal species production characteristics, (i.e. extensive vs. intensive production, ruminants vs. non ruminants, different feed conversion ratios and different feed components and their production impacts).

It is important to reiterate that the inherent variation within the eatwell plate food groups regardless of methodological issues. The eatwell groups are too broad in their compositions to quantify and convey the relative levels of environmental sustainability. Aligning dietary intake to the proportions of the broad food groups recommended by the eatwell plate allows for a multitude of different food options and therefore a potentially wide variation in the environmental burden of a healthy diet. This issue along with the lack of studies following a consistent or harmonised LCA methodology in reporting environmental burdens of specific food chains within the eatwell plate (i.e. most foods) will create significant challenges in communicating environmental information to the consumer.

Evidence relevant to assessing the Social sustainability of a healthy diet

Apart from a few exceptions, investigations indicated that there was a paucity of research on social sustainability in relation to specific food chains. Indeed, social sustainability indicators are linked mostly to how a food product is produced, processed, distributed and consumed, rather than the specific type of food. This is a very different approach to that used in LCAs and other methods for assessing environmental sustainability, and hence there may be a need to approach and conceptualise social sustainability in a different way. Therefore, information searches on each dimension were targeted generically towards each of the components in the food chain, from which findings could subsequently be considered in relation to the different eatwell plate food groups.

Unsurprisingly, the most highly informed dimension was that of health, reflecting the enormous effort and interest in supplying the population with safe, health–promoting nutrition. The ethical dimension was also highly informed, particularly regarding the impact of biotechnology e.g. GM for both plant- and animal-based foods, animal (including fish) welfare through to the knowledge base concerning social inequality in relation to consumption. In contrast, the other two dimensions (working conditions and societal dynamics) appear to be much less informed.

Evidence relevant to assessing the Economic sustainability of a healthy diet

The literature is of a generic nature, not specific to food group or to stage of the supply chain. Very few studies that explore the impact of shifting towards a healthy diet were identified which corroborated the indicators chosen for this study. It is evident that data availability is concentrated at the production end of the chain and, for value, the retail/consumption end. For storage, transport and distribution, data is fragmented at best. Of particular significance is the observation that food supply chains are highly differentiated in their structure and operations – between food groups and distribution channels – and thus much more complex, in terms of impact analysis, than the generic production – to – consumption chains that are typically assumed in LCA studies. This makes the comparison and integration of economic analysis with environmental analysis particularly difficult as the former is highly context-specific and descriptive whilst the latter tends to be more generalised and prescriptive.

The healthy diet and interrelationships between attributes from across the three pillarsRecent high level reports and publications that consider food consumption and sustainability issues tend to focus on the opportunities for reducing GHG in the food chain (Garnett 2011), and the impact of changing diet on GHG emissions (Audsley et al 2009; MacDiarmid et al, 2011). Whilst this undoubtedly reflects the topical interest in climate change, it also reflects the limitations in evidence across the other environmental attributes as well as the lack of readily available evidence from the economic and social directions. This may promote behaviour change which is environmentally beneficial from the GHG emissions viewpoint, but unintentionally overlook other very important impacts, both positive and negative (as acknowledged by Garnett 2011). The eatwell plate gives a visual representation of the types and proportions of foods needed for a healthy


and well balanced diet. This suggests the consumption of more vegetables, fruits and starchy foods, and less meat / dairy foods compared with current UK dietary behaviour. A significant reduction in the demand for meat and dairy products by UK consumers might be expected to result in a decline in UK meat production, assuming that the current output could not be supported by demand from overseas. This, in turn, would be expected to reduce the environmental impacts of cattle production (namely methane emissions) and of importing feed. However, increased consumption of vegetables and fruits may result in increased imports to provide supplies out of season. It may also lead to changes in land use in order to increase the production of food crops such as fruits and vegetables, although it might also lead to a reduction in area of crops used in animal feed or perhaps energy crops. From the social perspective, the changes in landscape may be deleterious if cattle husbandry was to be replaced by monotonous crop monocultures. From an economic perspective, such changes would have substantially negative impacts on the meat and dairy food chains, reducing commercial and employment opportunities in these sectors particularly in agronomy, processing, transport and distribution and retail. There would also be an associated impact on supply and employment related to non-food industries using by-products from livestock. Increased unemployment would be expected to have negative social connotations. From the environmental perspective, changes in land-use would be expected to have significant impacts on biodiversity. Hence consuming less meat and dairy products may have positive benefits to health and to some environmental attributes, but may result in numerous changes to impacts on other environmental, economic and social sustainability attributes which need to be considered.The current study demonstrates that for such an evaluation there is probably sufficient information to evaluate the economic impacts, for example, on employment and production and prices. From the social perspective, there is probably sufficient information to evaluate aspects of health but little on societal impacts or working conditions. From the environmental perspective, it is clear that from LCA reports, only three of the attributes (GWP, AP & EP) are adequately covered. However, there may be sufficient non-LCA information concerning biodiversity, water footprint, and reports on UK food waste to be able to make a reasonable inference as to the effects of dietary change.

In conclusionThis project has collated and evaluated a large amount of evidence on attributes relevant to the sustainability of food & drink consumption (Annexes A, B & C). 1) A much greater volume and depth of robust evidence appears to be available with respect to

environmental sustainability than for economic and social sustainability. This reflects the development of LCA and related research activities, the four most commonly evaluated attributes being GWP, EP, AP and RE. These generally relate to the production end of the food chain.

Evidence for economic attributes is also much greater at the production end of the chain, with limited evidence downstream. The evidence that does exist is also highly aggregated and of variable robustness in terms of methodological and analytical rigour.

2) The indicators of social sustainability are not particularly product specific and at a different level than the environmental and economic indicators (the focus being on processes rather than food types). The definition of social sustainability is also more uncertain than for the other sustainability types, and it is important to derive a more coherent and acceptable definition of this.

3) There is a pressing need to evaluate the above information in relation to UK consumption data with particular reference to the most commonly consumed foods. Furthermore, additional studies are required which adopt a more targeted and consequential approach as follows:

a. It is necessary to objectively prioritise a list of key sustainability attributes across the three pillars. This is because the perceived importance of these attributes may differ according to, for example, their topicality (e.g. climate change is much more heavily featured in the press than other environmental attributes such as water use or resource depletion) or the country of production where working conditions, employment or local biodiversity (e.g. farmland birds) may be an issue.

b. Secondly, using the agreed key sustainability attributes and selected, commonly-consumed products, to examine in detail a change in consumption from one commonly-consumed product to another. Indeed, the current Defra project FO0427 ‘Future implications of trends in healthy eating on existing food production and manufacture’ will model possible future UK diet scenarios and determine their environmental, social and economic impacts. Such a study should assess the potential impact on the agreed sustainability attributes across all three pillars and then evaluate how and where changes measured by the environmental attributes might impact on the social and economic attributes (and vice versa).

The approach should also include assessing the possibility of “spillover” where sustainability associated with production and consumption activity is displaced into other sectors. For example,


as pointed out by Garnett (2011), even if consumers change to eating less meat, any financial savings made may just be used to carry out other GHG-emitting activities such as recreation and travel. Furthermore, since the food supply is global, impacts of changing UK dietary patterns may influence food production in other countries. It may also be appropriate to extend studies such as the Livewell study (Macdiarmid et al, 2011) to evaluate and as far as possible estimate the impacts of dietary change on a greater range of sustainability attributes than just greenhouse gas emissions. This approach may be augmented by using a “checklist” to ensure that change between elements of the diet does not lead to unintended consequences in other attributes of sustainability e.g. changes in biodiversity or working conditions.

c. Finally, it is imperative to ensure that food losses along the food chain are accounted for in all life cycle studies of food products because they are often missed out. The importance of this is given weight by the recent FAO (Gustavsson et al, 2011) and WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme, 2009; 2010 a&b) reports which highlight the high proportion of food wasted.


Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of

the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Exchange).1.0 Introduction

Our food system and diet have a huge impact on our health and the environment and there is great pressure to ensure that our food production and consumption is both health-promoting and sustainable. In order to give consumers clear, consistent information on the impact of our food choices, we will need to develop a robust definition of a diet that is both healthy and sustainable. Indeed there has been an explosion of policies, instruments and initiatives during the past decades (from both governmental and market actors) to achieve sustainable development outcomes across a broad range of economic sectors, including food supply chains.

The most widely quoted definition of sustainable development is probably that of the Bruntland Commission, namely “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Although there remains no clear cut definition - it is generally accepted that there are three areas of importance: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability. A sustainable diet has many attributes (attributing factors) and there will be synergies and trade-offs between these. The subsequent development of detailed policies must also be underpinned by research to provide the necessary evidence base.

This report provides an overview and brief evaluation of the nature and extent of evidence that may be used in defining the sustainability of a healthy diet. The information within this report was compiled as part of a Defra-funded study between August 2010 and July 2011.

The objectives of the study, as agreed with Defra and the Project Steering Group, were:

1) To define and evaluate food chains underpinning healthy diets which are described by current Government guidelines with special reference to the eatwell plate.

2) To develop, where possible, a matrix approach and classify attributes of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental) in relation to key parts of the representative food chains identified in Step 1.

3) To integrate and evaluate the robustness of evidence from a broad range of disciplines with expert opinion from an invited group, identify gaps in our knowledge, and provide recommendations to inform advice to consumers and identify further research required to characterise a sustainable healthy diet.

Data, evidence, metrics and guidance concerning the sustainability attributes of a healthy diet are presented in relation to the component food chains.

2.0 Methodology

The Project Consortium and an external panel of experts have reviewed information sources to identify evidence, data, guidance and metrics readily available to define the environmental, social and economic sustainability attributes of a healthy diet. Information sources included academic theses, reviews and reports (both peer and non-peer reviewed, from the public and private sector), book chapters and company information / websites as well as personal communications.


2.1 Food chains underpinning healthy diets: the eatwell plate

In accordance with the Project Specification, the study has used the Department of Health’s eatwell plate and food groups therein as a basis for the composition of a healthy diet and has not attempted to re-examine this.

Figure 1. The eatwell plate. Image: Crown Copyright. Department of Health in association with the Welsh Assembly Government, the Scottish Government and the Food Standards Agency in Northern Ireland.

The eatwell plate is a policy tool that defines the Government’s recommendations on healthy diets. It makes healthy eating easier to understand by giving a visual representation of the types and proportions of foods needed for a healthy and well balanced diet.

The eatwell plate is based on the five food groups: Bread, rice, potatoes, pasta and other starchy foods Fruit and vegetables Milk and dairy foods Meat, fish, eggs, beans and other non-dairy sources of protein Foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar

The eatwell plate encourages the choice of different foods from the first four groups every day, to help ensure the population obtains a wide range of nutrients needed to remain healthy. Choosing a variety of foods from within each group will add to the range of nutrients consumed. Foods in the fifth group – foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar are not essential to a healthy diet.

In each case, and for each pillar of sustainability, the food chains were generically considered as comprising: Agronomy / production Processing Storage and Transport (throughout the chain) Distribution and Retail Consumption


The methodologies associated with evaluating the evidence base were tailored to suit the different sustainability attributes associated with the three pillars.

2.2 Classification of attributes of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental) in relation to key parts of the representative food chains and the evaluation of evidence.

2.2.1 Environmental Sustainability

The evaluation of environmental sustainability is a broad and rapidly growing field of scientific research. Over the last 25 years, a wide range of methods and attributes have been developed and explored in relation to environmental impact of human and other activities. On the basis of published literature and expert opinion, the following sustainability attributes were chosen for consideration:

1. global warming potential (GWP)2. eutrophication potential (EP)3. acidification potential (AP)4. ozone depletion potential (ODP)5. photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP)6. biotic resource use / depletion (BRD)7. abiotic resource use / depletion (ARD)8. ecotoxicity potential (ETP) 9. human toxicity potential (HTP);10. land use (LU)11. reported energy (RE)12. water use (WU)13. biodiversity (BD)

Whilst no one method for evaluating environmental impact is all encompassing, there is no doubt that the most common approach involves the use of life cycle assessment (LCA), underpinned by a growing number of software tools and databases e.g. SimaPro (Pré Consultants), Ecoinvent (ecoinvent Centre) & GaBi (PE International). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, published LCAs (mostly attributional) were chosen as the most robust sources of evidence for quantifying environmental attributes of specific foods. LCA results of all food items found in extensive literature searches were recorded, where applicable, for comparison under categories of the eatwell plate food groups along with other data on:

The food product; The kind of production system; The functional unit reported; The data source and country of study; The extent of the food chain covered (system boundaries); The reported results and metrics of environmental impact.

Where possible the impacts reported were converted to common units of impact characterisation and scaled to functional units of 1kg of food product. A summary of this evidence is presented in Annex A.

In addition to LCA, there are additional sources of data that can provide evidence for evaluating the environmental sustainability of a healthy diet. These have also been considered and the findings summarised.

2.2.2 Social Sustainability

Unfortunately, ‘social sustainability’ has no fixed, universally accepted definition. Further, the evaluation of social sustainability is more qualitative in nature when compared with the quantitative methodology associated with environmental evaluation and economic evaluation. When social sustainability has been defined, it has tended to be according to the immediate and diverse needs of different practitioners. As such, numerous indicators / attributes have been alluded to, for example, “internal social sustainability” (relating to working conditions) and “External social sustainability” (relating to food safety, animal welfare and animal health), by Van Calker et al (2005). In contrast Olesen, Groen and Gjerde (2000) in their definition of sustainability, included social viability, and ethical aspects. Some studies have focused on individual issues, for example, Broom (2010) has stated that ‘a system that results in poor (animal) welfare is unsustainable because it is unacceptable to many people’. More recently the FAO (2011) highlighted ‘social well-being’ as including labour rights, non-discrimination and equity, education, health and safety, nutritional products and safe working conditions while including ‘good governance’ as a fourth pillar of social sustainability.


Therefore, after consultation with the Expert Group, the following four key “dimensions” (broad attributes) were selected:

Health and welfare (perceived and real), with respect to a) food safety and b) nutrition Ethics, with respect to a) inequity (amongst social groups) and b) animal health/welfare Working conditions, with respect to employment conditions and worker safety Societal dynamics, with respect to community cohesion, education, landscape

Initial investigations indicated that there was, apart from a few exceptions, relatively little research on social sustainability elements in relation to specific food products. Indeed, social sustainability indicators are linked mostly to how a food product is produced, processed, distributed and consumed, rather than the specific type of food. This is a very different approach to that used in LCAs and other methods for assessing environmental sustainability, and hence there may be a need to approach and conceptualise social sustainability in a different way. For present purposes, information searches on each dimension were targeted generically towards each of the components in the food chain, from which findings could subsequently be considered in relation to the different eatwell plate food groups. Evidence was gathered through international web-based databases (Web of Science; mostly peer-reviewed articles) and expert recommendations from the Steering Group and Expert Panel.

Information was compiled in tabular form (Annex B) and a subjective judgement on the level of knowledge for each food component was scored numerically.

2.2.3 Economic sustainability

As a starting point, the basic factors of production (land, labour and capital) were selected and then other possible dimensions added, these being trade, pricing and managerial capacity.

After preliminary literature studies, the following list was created:

1) Land (area)2) Production3) Prices4) Value of output5) Employment6) Trade

Information on the availability of information and evidence for these indicators was obtained through the evaluation of published literature, and guidance from contact with organisations and individuals with expertise. This was performed for selected products and their food chains within each of the five food food groups of the eatwell plate. Whilst it is recognised that there may be some gaps, some of the data sources identified will be common to other products within each food group.

Table 1 : Food products chosen to represent different food groups of the eatwell plate

eatwell plate food group Product(s) chosen to represent food group

Bread, rice, potatoes, pasta and other starchy foods Potatoes, cereals, flour, breadFruit and vegetables Carrots, lettuce, strawberries,

dessert applesMilk and dairy foods Milk, cheese (Cheddar)Meat, fish, eggs, beans and other non-dairy sources of protein

Red meat

Foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar Ice cream, biscuits

For each of the five food groups, an attempt was made to identify data sources for each of the six economic indicators. This information was compiled in tabular form (Annex C) and a subjective judgement on the level of readily available knowledge for each food component was scored numerically.


3.0 Results

3.1 Evidence relevant to assessing the environmental sustainability of a healthy diet

A comprehensive synopsis of all the LCA and related literature evaluated was compiled (over 180 published articles). A simple numerical quantification of incidences (i.e. a count of all occurrences of all attributes in all references) was graphically presented across the food chain for each of the five eatwell plate food groups (Figure 2). An additional food chain step, “post-consumer disposal”, was included in this analysis.

Figure 2. Comparative frequencies of incidences of environmental evaluation for different stages of the food chain

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Bread & starchy foods Foods high in fat and/or sugar

Fruit and vegetables Milk and dairy Meat, fish etc

Incidence frequency

Agronomy impacts

Processing impactsDistribution / transport

Retail

Consumption

Post-consumer disposal

The results demonstrate that for all food groups, the system boundary is generally positioned towards the farm gate end of the food supply chain, and very few incidences extend as far as the consumer. There is a shortage of studies which include information on distribution, retail and consumption and waste.

The summarised information on all the literature was further evaluated in order to assess the availability and quality of the information in more depth with reference to the individual sustainability attributes. A list of food products for which evidence on environmental sustainability was found is shown in Table 2. The overall assessment of the evidence relevant to all selected sustainability attributes versus the eatwell plate food groups is shown in Figure 3, whilst a more detailed assessment of each food group examining the attributes against food product is shown in Annex A. The four most commonly evaluated attributes were GWP, EP, AP and RE. The widest consideration of attributes was evident in the “Fruit and Vegetables” food group.

Table 2. List of foods organised by eatwell plate food group for which evidence of environmental sustainability was found.

Food group Products for which evidence was foundBread, rice, potatoes, pasta and other starchy foods

Bread Potatoes Oat flakes

Pasta Rice

Fruit and vegetables

Apples Pineapple Strawberries Carrots & root vegetables Brassicas

Lettuce & cucumber Tomatoes Citrus fruits & juices Alliums

Milk and dairy foods

Milk Cheese

Yoghurt


Meat, fish, eggs, beans and other non-dairy sources of protein

Beef Pork Lamb Chicken White fish Oily fish

Shellfish Eggs Legumes & pulses Mycoprotein & processed meat

analogues

Foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar

Cakes, biscuits & pastries Sugary drinks Chocolate & sweets Ice cream Jam & honey

Crisps Butter, margarine & spreads Cream Edible oils Sugar

Figure 3: Overall assessment of quality and robustness of environmental attribute data (mostly from LCA) for all eatwell plate food groups.

Key:GREEN Good evidence available for the majority of food products in food group. No

gaps in coverage of food group in terms of the most commonly consumed products.

ORANGE

or

Some evidence / limited evidence across food group although coverage of some products may be very good.Gaps in coverage of food group in terms of consumption of products.

RED Insufficient evidence / no evidence on majority of food products in food group.

Attribute eatwell plate food groupBread, rice, potatoes, pasta & other starchy foods

Fruit & vegetables

Milk & dairy foods

Meat, fish, eggs, beans and other sources of non-dairy protein

Foods and drinks high in fat and / or sugar

GWPEPAPPOCPODPHTPETPARDBRDRELUBDWU

Abbreviations: GWP, global warming potential; EP, eutrophication potential; AP, acidification potential; POCP, photochemical ozone creation potential; ODP, ozone depletion potential; HTP, human toxicity potential; ETP, ecotoxicity potential; ARD, abiotic resource depletion; BRD, biotic resource depletion; RE, reported energy; LU, land use; BD, biodiversity; WU, water use.

Even though there would appear to be a good level of evidence for these four attributes (shown by the green highlighted boxes), considerable variation was often found within the published data, and between data from different eatwell plate food groups. In order to present this variation as clearly as possible, the data from all the identified literature for these four attributes has been graphically presented (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Plots of reported values for the four most commonly reported attributes for main categories of


foods within each food group of the eatwell plate.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Eutrophication Potential

Eutrophication Potential g PO43- (ATTRIBUTIONAL) Eutrophication Potential g PO43- (CONSEQUENTIAL)

g PO43- eq. kg-1

Beef Pork Sheepmeat

Poultry Cheese Yoghurt MilkFarmedOily Fish

Wild White Fish

FarmedWhite

fish

Wild Oily Fish

Farmed Shell Fish

Wild Shell Fish

Non-Meat

Protein

Eggs Fruit

Vege

tabl

es Bread Potatoes

Who

legr

ains

(o

ats a

nd w

heat

)

RicePasta

High

in fa

t and

suga

r


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Acidification Potential

Acidification Potential gSO2eq (ATTRIBUTIONAL) Acidification Potential gSO2eq (CONSEQUENTIAL)

g SO2 eq. kg-1

Beef Pork Sheepmeat


Wild White

Fish

FarmedWhite

fish

Wild Oily Fish

Farmed Shell Fish

Wild Shell Fish

Non-Meat

Protein

Eggs Fruit

Vege

tabl

es Bread Potatoes

Who

legr

ains

(o

ats a

nd w

heat

)

RicePasta

High

in fa

t and

suga

r

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Reported Energy

Energy Use MJ kg-1 (ATTRIBUTIONAL) Energy Use MJ kg-1 (CONSEQUENTIAL)

MJ kg-1

Beef Pork Sheepmeat


Wild White

Fish

FarmedWhite

fish

Wild Oily Fish

Farmed Shell Fish

Wild Shell Fish

Non-Meat

Protein

Eggs Fruit

Vege

tabl

es Bread Potatoes

Who

legr

ains

(o

ats a

nd w

heat

)

RicePasta

High

in fa

t and

suga

r


The results are consistent with generally accepted conclusions. For example, the production of red meat often exhibits a much higher GWP than production of vegetables. However, an important observation was that each food category had a considerable range of data, highlighting problems in making general comparisons between specific food types (beef, pork, etc.) or food groups. Such wide ranges were due to a number of factors. For instance, the main variation in reported burdens within the meat food chains were often due to differences in life cycle assessment methodology and boundaries, (for example economic allocation of GWP emissions to expensive cuts of meat at the retail stage, whilst other studies include methodologies for soil emissions not commonly included in other studies). In addition, there are wide differences in the values reported for specific burdens between different types of meat & meat products. It should be stressed that there is also inherent variation in the environmental impact data within the eatwell plate food groups regardless of methodological issues. In fruits and vegetables, very high GWP reported for some products resulted from production system characteristics, (e.g. growing fruits out of season under glass, longer cold storage compared to importing in-season produce, or air freighting fresh produce).

The eatwell groups are, by their very nature, wide – for instance, the ‘Meat, fish, eggs, beans and other non-dairy sources of protein’ food group includes a wide range of interchangeable products which vary in their impact from very low to very high. . So, a key conclusion is that the groups in the eatwell plate are too wide for this purpose and will provide significant challenges in facilitating communication of environmental information to the general public.

In addition, variation was also due to the differences in the goals and scopes of the different studies, the methodological approaches, the setting of boundaries and assumptions as well as data quality & availability. It is likely that they were not designed with such comparative evaluation with other studies of similar or different food products in mind. Other review papers have compared different lifecycle assessments, often highlighting methodological differences. Transparency of studies, data and methods were also an issue in this respect – many studies did not give enough details to allow studies to be repeated. This is partly because of the widespread use of commercial databases but also because journals do not always provide enough space for all details. In addition, some data are provided by commercial operators on a confidential basis.

Further differences arise between studies according to whether they apply attributional or consequential analysis. Attributional (or “accounting”) LCA describes an existing supply chain; it is used, for example, in estimating the “carbon footprint” of a product. Consequential (or “prospective”) LCA attempts to explore the system effects of changes in economic activities; a conspicuous use of consequential LCA is in exploring the effects of changes in land use due to switching from production of food to fuel crops in one location, compensated by increased food production elsewhere. The methodological differences between the two forms of LCA are a matter of current debate but, for food products, consequential LCA usually gives significantly higher impacts, particularly for climate change, because it includes changes in carbon stock resulting from indirect land use change.

In order to provide a basis for comparison of evidence and data between the three pillars of sustainability, the availability of environmental data (i.e. a count of all occurrences of the four most commonly reported attributes) in relation to the eatwell plate food groups and component food chains is provided in Figure 5. The colour scheme adopted is not judgemental, but provides a graduated indication of the extent of the information. The “robustness” of the information is presented in Annex A. The results are consistent with the conclusions above, and additionally demonstrate that most LCA-related studies concern GWP reported to the farm gate.


Figure 5. Comparative frequencies of incidences of the four most commonly reported attributes of environmental sustainability as a function of stage of the food chain for the food products investigated within different eatwell plate food groups, and for the total eatwell plate.

GWP AP EP RE

Bread, rice, potatoes, pasta& other starchy foods

Agronomy 97 46 47 37

Processing 80 36 32 31

Distribution & transport 72 30 26 29

Retail 45 28 24 22

Consumer 49 22 18 24

Post consumer disposal 14 3 2 0

Fruit and vegetables

Agronomy 181 84 80 103



Retail 22 3 3 8

Consumer 17 0 0 3


Milk and dairy foods




Retail 16 7 8 5

Consumer 12 4 5 4


Meat, fish, eggs, beans andother non-dairy sources

of protein

Agronomy 229 132 135 115



Retail 39 25 27 16

Consumer 21 6 8 15


Foods and drinks highin fat and/or sugar




Retail 30 5 9 7

Consumer 20 1 1 3


Total eatwell plate

Agronomy 642 333 338 304

Processing 397 169 168 150


Retail 152 68 71 58

Consumer 119 33 32 49


Additional sources of evidence

Whilst LCA data provides the most comprehensive evidence base for most of the sustainability attributes investigated, notwithstanding the limitations identified, there are also a number of other key sources that may provide supplementary data.

The following topics are discussed in Annex A:1) Biodiversity2) Waste



References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.Audsley, E., Chatterton, J., Graves, A., Morris, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Pearn, K., Sanders, D. and Williams, A. (2010). Food, land and greenhouse gases: the effects of changes in UK food consumption on land requirements and greenhouse gas emissions. Report prepared for the United Kingdom’s Government’s Committee on Climate Change, available online at http://downloads.theccc.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/4th%20Budget/fourthbudget_supporting_research_cranfield_dietsGHGLU_agriculture.pdf, accessed 17 May 2011.

Bassett-Mens, C. & van der Werf, H.M.G. (2005). Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 105, 127-144.

Bassett-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., Robin, P., Morvan, Th., Hassouna, M., Paillat, J.-M. & Vertès F. (2007). Methods and data for the environmental inventory of contrasting pig production systems, Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1395-1405.

Broom, D.M. (2010) Animal Welfare: An Aspect of Care, Sustainability, and Food Quality Required by the Public, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37(1), 83-88.

Cederberg, C. & Stadig, M. (2003). System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8 (6), 350-356.

eatwell plate, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Nutrition/DH_126493 , accessed 26 July 2011.

Ecoinvent Centre, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland, www.ecoinvent.org

FAO, (2011) Background document to E-Forum on Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA), see http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/docs/Background_Document_01.pdf , last accessed 22 March 2011.

FSA, 2002, McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods, Sixth summary edition. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry

Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?. Food Policy, 36, S23-S32.

Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U., van Otterdijk R. & Meybeck A., (2011), Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

KRAV, (2010). Climate Smart KRAV Fish: Emissions of greenhouse gases from a 400g pack of cod. A comparison of KRAV-approved cod and average cod, available online at http://www.krav.se/Documents/Engelska%20sidor/20100528%20Climate%20Smart%20Fish%20Report%20-%20final.pdf, (accessed 15 June 2011).

Lewis K.A., Green A., Tzilivakis J. & Warner D.J. (2010). The contribution of UK farm assurance schemes towards desirable environmental policy outcomes, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8, 4, 237-249.

Macdiarmid, J., Kyle, J., Horgan, G., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A. & McNeill, G. (2011). Livewell: a balance of healthy and sustainable food choices. WWF-UK.

Olesen, I., Groen, A.F. & Gjerde, B. (2000) Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems, Journal of Animal Science, 78 (3), 570-582.

PE International, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany, www.gabi-software.com, (accessed 14 June 2011)

Pré Consultants bv, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, www.pre.nl, (accessed 14 June 2011)

Sorrell, S. (2007) The rebound effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=ReboundEffect

Van Calker K.J., Berentsen P.B.M., Romero C., Giesen G.W.J. & Huirne R.B.M., Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems, Ecological Economics, (2006), 57, 640-658.

WRAP, (2009), Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK, Report prepared by WRAP, Banbury, UK.

WRAP, (2010a), Waste arisings in the supply of food and drink to households in the UK, Report prepared for WRAP, Banbury, UK.


http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=ReboundEffect

http://www.pre.nl/

http://www.gabi-software.com/

http://www.krav.se/Documents/Engelska%20sidor/20100528%20Climate%20Smart%20Fish%20Report%20-%20final.pdf

http://www.krav.se/Documents/Engelska%20sidor/20100528%20Climate%20Smart%20Fish%20Report%20-%20final.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/docs/Background_Document_01.pdf

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Nutrition/DH_126493

http://downloads.theccc.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/4th%20Budget/fourthbudget_supporting_research_cranfield_dietsGHGLU_agriculture.pdf

http://downloads.theccc.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/4th%20Budget/fourthbudget_supporting_research_cranfield_dietsGHGLU_agriculture.pdf

WRAP, (2010b), Reducing food waste through the chill chain. Part 1: Insights around the domestic refrigerator, Report prepared for WRAP, Banbury, UK.
