Food and Environment Explained

Our panel of international experts explores the relationship between healthy diets and a healthy planet and their impact on national dietary guidelines.

Introduction

Facts

There is a big shortfall between the amount of food we produce today and the amount needed to feed everyone in 2050. There will be nearly 10 billion people on Earth by 2050 — about 3 billion more mouths to feed than there were in 2010.

Marie Persson

Project Manager Swedish Food Strategy
TILLVÄXTVERKET

Food systems, encompassing all processes and interactions from food production to consumption and food waste, interact with the environment in multiple ways. Not only are food systems major sources of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change, but they also contribute to water and air pollution, deforestation, biodiversity loss, desertification, and land degradation.

How we will feed a growing — and increasingly affluent — world population on the limited land that is suitable for agriculture is one of the greatest challenges of today. With unchanged production and consumption patterns, the global food system cannot meet the nutritional demands of a growing world population projected to increase to 10 billion by 2050 without irreversibly damaging the planet. The land requirements of different diets tend to be most strongly correlated to a country’s level of per capita meat consumption. As of today, livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land. Building truly sustainable food systems will require us to stay within the environmentally sustainable limits for food production, while at the same time ensuring that our food systems can provide basic human needs like nutrition, employment, health, and more. This effort will only be possible with structural changes in how food systems operate and through changes to our appetite for resource-intensive and environmentally harmful foods, particularly in high- and middle-income countries where other options are more easily available.

Key term

Facts

Soil health has been defined as the capacity of soil to function as a living system. Healthy soil contributes to mitigating climate change by maintaining or increasing its carbon content.

Kate Scow

Professor of Soil Science and Microbial Ecology
UC DAVIS

I care about my health – why should I care about soil health?

Deterioration of relationships between humans and soil has led to unsustainable management of agricultural, urban, and wildland soils, leaving behind degraded ecosystems and endangering human health. Many of us have wandered far from our soil roots and are disconnected from Earth’s Terra Firma. Few realize how much our own health depends on the health of soils, good food, clean air and water, a stable climate, and disease control. Healthier soil is within reach: basic principles such as feeding it more, disturbing it less, keeping it covered, and poisoning it less, all of which can be realized through practices that have been around for years. We are all in this together, and our collective health depends on taking care of one another.

Key term

Facts

According to the FAO, the global livestock sector is responsible for approximately 14.5% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Christel Cederberg

Professor – Department Space, Earth and Environment
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

What are the main negative impacts on the environment associated with conventional dairy and meat production? Are there beef production practices that are more environmentally friendly than others?

The way that animal feeds are grown and managed is crucial for meat’s environmental friendliness. While feeding strategies in poultry and pork production follow a similar pattern in most parts of the world — grain combined with a protein source, often soy meal — the feed sources in global beef production systems show large variations. Beef can be sourced from diverse production systems, such as cattle grazing on newly deforested land in the Amazon, cattle raised in North American feedlots that are intensely fed with concentrates, and cattle pasturing in the rich, high-altitude grasslands of Europe.

During the last decade, research on food environmental sustainability has had a strong focus on calculating greenhouse gas emissions from different agricultural systems and estimating how alternative diets can contribute to the reduced climate impact of food consumption. My strong belief is that research now must widen the analysis of agriculture to include additional urgent environmental aspects when searching for answers on how meat production can/should develop and on which meat types and how much meat we can/should eat in the future. Current environmental analyses provide us with an unbalanced picture of agriculture and food systems´ sustainability (1), and it is urgent that we get better data and information about land degradation, biodiversity impacts, and negative effects of pesticides and veterinary antibiotics associated with current animal production systems, and this goes for all meat, not only beef.

The concept of agroecology is increasingly discussed as a way of transforming global food systems to meet the Sustainability Development Goals. Consequently, we need to investigate what type of beef production practices fit within this concept. We can do that with the help of 10 principles of agroecology suggested by FAO (2), where the principles of Diversity, Synergies, Efficiency, Resilience, and Recycling are highly relevant when assessing environmental sustainability. Examples of beef production practices that encompass those principles are systems that integrate crop and livestock to optimize nutrient cycles and systems that integrate dairy and meat to improve efficiency. For example, this would include systems that use legumes to reduce nitrogen fertilizer inputs, or production systems that consist mostly of forage and pasture, since these feed sources have a high potential to favor biodiversity and soil health and to reduce pesticides (unless deforested land is used).

Key term

Facts

The lowest impact forms of animal protein come from species that feed naturally in the ocean, and that can be harvested with low fuel requirements.

Dave Love

Senior Scientist
JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Which seafood is the best choice for the environment and climate change?

For seafood production, catching small pelagic fish and farming mollusks have the lowest impacts on the climate. Small pelagic fish like anchovies, herring, and sardines swim in dense schools in the ocean and can be caught more easily and with less fuel than other species. While many small pelagic fish are caught and turned into fish meal, some are eaten, particularly in parts of Africa where they are an essential food source. Farmed mollusks such as clams, mussels, and oysters do not require feed, as is also the case for seaweed, which makes them climate-friendly. In the context of the rest of the supply chain, shipping seafood also has climate impacts. Compared to shipping seafood by boat, shipping by air takes 50 times more energy than by boat, and it takes 12 times more energy by truck than by boat. Boats are used to ship frozen and canned seafood long distances, while fresh seafood travels by air. When considering seafood products that have come from other countries, consider the climate impacts of products advertised as “never frozen.” Selecting frozen or canned seafood can also limit food waste, which is another contributor to climate change.

Key term

Facts

In our oceans alone, plastic debris outweighs zooplankton by a ratio of 36-to-1.

Dianna Cohen

CEO
PLASTIC POLLUTION COALITION

What’s the big deal if I throw away plastic?

More and more plastic is being produced every day, yet studies show that 91% of plastic is NOT recycled. So what happens to all that plastic we “throw away?” Eight million tons of plastic enter the ocean annually. A portion of this plastic waste is burned, contributing to air pollution. The rest ends up in our landfills and environment. In the U.S., the plastic pollution counted as “recycled” may be exported to countries with poor waste management, where plastic may be crudely processed in unsafe facilities and burnt in open areas, creating additional pollution and human health concerns. Many people do not realize that plastic comes from petroleum and is a source of greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. What can we do to stop this urgent global crisis? Refuse single-use plastic! Think “reusable” instead of “disposable” in your daily choices for food and beverages.

Key term

Facts

Agriculture accounts for, on average, 70% of all water withdrawals globally and an even higher share of “consumptive water use” due to the evapotranspiration requirements of crops.

Mesfin Mekonnen

Assistant Professor
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

How much water does it take to produce the food products we eat every day?

The 2012 World Water Day slogan “The World is Thirsty Because We are Hungry” clearly illustrates the crucial relationship between water and food production. However, most consumers have little idea of the close link between water consumption and food production. The average American needs about 7,800 liters of water a day. Just 4% of this water is used at home for cleaning, cooking and drinking, washing, and showering. A colossal 96% of the water is invisible and is used to produce the food, fiber, and other daily products we use. A hamburger needs 2,400 liters of water; a cup of coffee needs 130 liters; a chocolate bar needs 1,700 liters; a kilo of beef needs 15,000 liters of water. We do need to realize that, through our eating habits and by reducing waste, we will make the world a little more water-secure.

Key term

Facts

Some studies indicate that organic farming systems produce lower yields compared with conventional agriculture but are more profitable and environmentally friendly, and also deliver equally or more nutritious foods that contain less (or no) pesticide residues, in comparison to conventional farming.

Alexander Muller

Managing Director
TMG THINK TANK

Are organic foods really better for me and the planet?

Organic agriculture aims to maintain an ecological balance by considering the medium- and long-term effects of agricultural interventions on the agro-ecosystem. It takes a proactive approach, as opposed to treating problems after they emerge. Organic production systems have proven environmental benefits, including increased soil quality, enhanced biodiversity, reduced pollution, and improved animal welfare. Better soil structure, more organic matter, and more living organisms in organically managed soils support fertility and reduce soil erosion while enhancing production resiliency during drought, thus improving food security potential in a growing period of climatic uncertainty. Organic farms often have more semi-natural habitats that help to protect and manage biodiversity. By significantly reducing synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use, organic farming reduces nitrogen and phosphorus leaching, protecting water resources and human health. Organic livestock have more space and access to the outdoors to express their natural behaviors. Routine use of preventive medication and antibiotics is restricted for organic animals, lowering the risk of antibiotic resistance and helping prolong effectiveness for human medical use. Consuming organic foods significantly decreases exposure to pesticide residues and associated endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other human health issues. Organic farms often create more jobs and better incomes for farmers and workers. With fewer pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and antibiotics, and a commitment to fostering a healthier and more resilient environment, organic farming improves the lives of farmers, farm workers, consumers, and society.

Key term

Organic Agriculture

Holistic farming approach that avoids synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs); emphasizes sustainable practices, soil health, and biodiversity, and often involves practices such as crop rotation, composting, and the use of natural methods (including biological pesticides) to control pests; goal is to produce food in an environmentally friendly and socially responsible manner while promoting overall ecosystem health.

More Lex Icons™

Facts

The UN Sustainable Development Goals are a call for action by all countries — poor, rich, and middle-income — to promote prosperity while protecting the planet.

Yael Parag

Senior Lecturer
IDC SCHOOL OF SUSTAINABILITY

Drinking water is a human right. Why is it important to have more safe drinking tap water and avoid drinking bottled water?

We cannot live without water. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #6 calls for ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Despite the progress made in improving the availability of basic drinking water services, today, more than 700 million people around the world still lack even this basic service (the WHO defines “basic service” as an improved drinking water source within a round trip of 30 minutes to collect water).

Safe drinking water is essential for human health, as contaminated water can transmit many diseases, including diarrhea, cholera, and polio. It is estimated that diarrhea caused by contaminated drinking water is responsible for nearly 500,000 death cases each year, many of which are children under the age of 5. In addition, poor water quality impacts education, as water-borne diseases are associated with poor school attendance, and thus millions of school days are lost. In under-developed and developing regions, the provisioning of safe drinking water contributes significantly to economic growth and improves productivity. That increase is due to improved health, higher school attendance, and the fact that people need to spend less time and effort collecting and delivering water to their families. The WHO estimated a return of $4.30 for every $1 invested in water and sanitation services and an overall gain of 1.5% of global GDP.

Thanks to regulation and investments in water infrastructure, the quality of tap water in nearly all developed countries is high and tightly monitored, and only rarely does one of these countries suffer an outbreak of water-borne disease. In addition, in most countries, safe water is affordable. And yet, the bottled water industry is flourishing and rapidly growing, as many of those who have access to safe and cheap drinking water prefer bottled water over tap water.

Today, millions of people around the world, in developed and developing countries, consume bottled water regularly. To illustrate, approximately 212 billion liters of bottled water were consumed globally in 2007. By 2017, consumption reached 391 billion liters, and consumption per capita increased as well.

It is likely that most consumers are not fully aware of the heavy environmental, social, and economic costs associated with the consumption of bottled water. Compared to tap water, the quality of bottled water is less regulated and less monitored. The plastic bottles themselves often release unhealthy chemicals into the water, thus posing various health risks to the drinker. The manufacturing of plastic bottles requires vast amounts of oil, as does the transportation of raw materials to the factories and final products to consumers. Many tons of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere during these processes, thus contributing to climate change. While used plastic bottles can be recycled, more often than not, they end their life in landfills or in various ecosystems, where they pose a risk to wildlife. When the plastic wears out to microplastic, it can pollute water resources and can accumulate in the tissues of animals and humans. As it takes decades for the plastic to decompose, the full health and environmental impacts of bottled water are not yet fully known and understood. So why pay for bottled water, which is harmful to human health and the environment, and could be tens and even hundreds of times more expensive than the safe tap water running in the pipelines?

Key term

Facts

Soy is a globally traded commodity produced in both temperate and tropical regions and serves as a key source of protein and vegetable oils. Since the 1950s, global soybean production has increased 15 times over. The United States, Brazil, and Argentina together produce about 80% of the world’s soy.

Harry Aiking

Institute for Environmental Studies
VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT AMSTERDAM

Heleen van den Hombergh

Senior Policy Advisor
IUCN NL

Tofu is made from soybeans. What is the ecological impact of conventional soybean production and how does soy compare to animal products from an environment and climate perspective?

Conventional soy production often contributes to biodiversity loss by deforestation, conversion of valuable grasslands, and irresponsible use of chemicals. Good sustainability standards are available to avoid these ecological effects, but the use of soy for livestock feed still uses about five times more land, water, and energy than soy does for direct human consumption! So, the choice for tofu or other plant protein made from certified deforestation & conversion-free, non-genetically modified soy is a huge step towards a healthier and climate-proof planet.

Key term

Facts

According to a recent study, feed production, processing, and transport resulted in greater overall environmental impacts than any other components of broiler production; for example, 65-81% of the primary energy use and 71-72% of the global warming potential of the system were due to these burdens. Farm gas and oil use had the second highest impact on primary energy use (12-25%), followed by farm electricity use.

Michael MacLeod

Senior Researcher
SCOTLAND'S RURAL COLLEGE (SRC)

What are the environmental impacts of egg production?

Hens’ eggs make an important contribution to food security globally by providing affordable, high-quality protein in a broadly culturally-acceptable form. In developing countries, small-scale flocks of poultry provide scarce animal protein and are often essential to women’s incomes and positions within their households. However, like most foods, egg production has some negative impacts on the environment. Most of these impacts arise during the growing of crops for feed and the management of manures excreted by the laying hens. Feed production entails the use of land, fertilizer, and energy and the emission of greenhouse gas emissions, losses of nutrients to the environment, and impacts on biodiversity. The management of chicken manure can also lead to significant impacts in terms of GHG emissions and nutrient losses. Finally, a small amount of energy is also used on chicken farms, which can have a variety of impacts, depending on the energy source. Many options exist to reduce the impacts of egg production. In small-scale production, reducing predation and improving chicken health and genetics can lead to increases in productivity and a reduction in the environmental impact per egg produced. In developed countries, laying hens are already high-performing, so the scope for improvement via breeding is more limited. However, other ways of reducing the impact are available, such as the use of enzymes to improve feed digestibility and changes in the way manure is managed. Finally, as feed production accounts for most of the environmental impact of eggs, improvements in feed crop production (e.g., increasing the efficiency of fertilizer application or increasing soil carbon stocks) will lead to significant reductions in the impact of eggs.

Key term

Facts

Oil palm plantations support far fewer species than forests and other tree crops do. Further negative impacts include habitat fragmentation and pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions. With rising demand for vegetable oils and biofuels, in addition to strong overlap between areas suitable for oil palm and those of most importance for biodiversity, substantial biodiversity losses will only be averted if future oil palm expansion is managed to avoid deforestation.

Andrew Greenwell

Field Data Associate
SOUND AGRICULTURE

Why should I care if foods contain palm oil?

Palm oil is complex. Its long shelf life, affordability, and production efficiency (generating 4-10 times the amount of oil than comparable crops like soybean from an acre) make it a key ingredient in 50% of the products found on supermarket shelves, including frying oil, peanut butter, ice cream, margarine, crackers, and cookies. Palm oil is also used in cosmetics, soaps, to relieve vitamin A deficiency, and pharmaceuticals for the treatment of malaria and even cyanide poisoning! If it doesn’t sound familiar, maybe you recognize it by one of its other names – palm kernel, vegetable oil, palmitate, glyceryl, stearate, or sodium laureth sulfate.

The widespread use and demand for palm oil complicates solving the impacts of harmful palm production practices. In Indonesia and Malaysia — where 84% of the world’s palm oil is grown — there are declines in forest and peatlands causing biodiversity loss; displacement of native creatures like orangutans; large climate change causing emissions; and land grabs from indigenous communities to maximize production land.

It’s important for consumers to actively stop supporting harmful palm production by identifying palm oil in food ingredients, understanding how and where it is produced, and holding the industry accountable for transparently promoting traceable and fair practices.

Key term

Facts

The average cup of coffee contains about 18g of green coffee, yielding 56 espressos from 1 kilo of coffee beans. Just one espresso has an average carbon footprint of about 0.28 kg, but it could be as little as 0.06 kg if grown sustainably.

If you prefer coffee with milk, the carbon footprint increases: Lattes have a carbon footprint of about 0.55 kg for a latte and 0.41 kg for cappuccino. If the coffee is produced sustainably, these values fall to 0.33 kg and 0.2 kg, respectively.

Christian Bunn

Associate Scientist
ALLIANCE BIOVERSITY & CIAT

What is the environmental footprint of conventionally-grown coffee?

Conventional coffee is a perennial crop with a productive life of about 20 years that is grown on plantations with up to 5000 small trees per hectare. This system compares favorably to adjacent field crop production (e.g., maize, soy) because it provides better soil protection, higher carbon stocks, lower machine use, higher biodiversity, and a less negative impact on the local climate. However, quantifying the environmental impact of conventionally grown coffee is difficult. Large coffee operations with high-input irrigated plantations, pre-emergence herbicides, pesticides, and machine harvesters will result in a higher water footprint and much lower biodiversity than, for example, a system with some functional shade trees, targeted agro-chemical use, and manual harvesting. But biodiversity and water footprint impacts pale when compared to the land use impact coffee has that leads to deforestation, an issue that is receiving renewed attention as global warming and demand for high-quality coffee drive coffee production into higher areas with forest cover and high biodiversity. Lastly, roasted coffee is not the product that is consumed — a cappuccino with milk has a carbon, land, and water footprint ten times as large as a filter coffee.

Key term

Facts

According to a study by the World Resources Institute (WRI), shifting to more diverse diets by including a variety of plant-based foods could reduce global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30% by 2050.

Rosaline Remans

CEO
GLOCOLEARNING

Can having more diverse diets have an impact on the environment?

One in three people in the world suffers from micronutrient deficiencies, and 1 in 5 children is chronically undernourished. Food biodiversity can help offer a more rich variety of high-nutrient species and varieties. Many nutritious fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and seeds that are available in the wild or traditional farming systems are not well known and could be used to improve the nutrient adequacy of diets and reduce diet-related illnesses and deaths.

Agriculture contributes around 24% of global greenhouse gas emissions, is the single largest user of freshwater on the planet and covers about 40% of global land area. Using biodiversity-based approaches on this vast area of land can reduce emissions and runoff, decrease the need for synthetic inputs, improve soil quality, encourage pollinators, and conserve varieties and species. Biodiversity-based solutions are at the heart of agroecological practices, which intensify production while reducing pressures on the environment and increasing the resilience of our food systems to shocks.

The ultimate strength of agrobiodiversity is its multi-functionality: it contributes to multiple dimensions of sustainability. And that is what sustainable diets are also about: benefiting human health, environmental sustainability, cultural ownership, and equity. Agrobiodiversity can help achieve on those multiple fronts. Diversity in diets contributes to adequate nutrition and culturally appropriate foods, diversity in production systems contributes to ecosystem services and environmental sustainability, diversity in market systems contributes to livelihood and food systems resilience, and provides opportunities for smallholders and agro-businesses. The key is to recognize and connect those multiple benefits of agrobiodiversity across the food system and its critical opportunity for more sustainable diets.