TitleEnvironmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7c08t1fv Journal Food Policy, 61(Significance 5 2008) a b s t r a c tThe environmental impact of the production and consumption of food is seldom depicted to consumers. The footprint of food products provides a means for consumers to compare environmental impacts across and within product groups. In this study we apply carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints in tandem and present food labels that could help inform consumers about the environmental impacts of individual food products. The footprint factors used in this study are specific to the United States, but the concept can be applied elsewhere. We propose three methods of footprint calculations: footprint weight, sustainability measures, and % daily value. We apply the three footprint calculation methods to four example labels (stars label, stoplight label, nutrition label add-on, and a detailed comparison label) that vary in design and the amount of detail provided. The stars label is simple and easily understood but provides minimal detail about the footprints. At the other end of the spectrum, the detailed comparison label gives context in relative terms (e.g., carbon emissions for equivalent distance driven) for the food product. Implementing environmental impact food labels requires additional understanding of how consumers use footprint labels, and label suitability may vary for government organizations, retail and local grocers, and farmers.

Nitrogen (N) management presents a sustainability dilemma: N is strongly linked to energy and food production, but excess reactive N causes environmental pollution. The N footprint is an indicator that quantifies reactive N losses to the environment from consumption and production of food and the use of energy. The average per capita N footprint (calculated using the N-Calculator methodology) of ten countries varies from 15 to 47 kg N capita -1 year -1 . The major cause of the difference is the protein consumption rates and food production N losses. The food sector dominates all countries' N footprints. Global connections via trade significantly affect the N footprint in countries that rely on imported foods and feeds. The authors present N footprint reduction strategies (e.g., improve N use efficiency, increase N recycling, reduce food waste, shift dietary choices) and identify knowledge gaps (e.g., the N footprint from nonfood goods and soil N process).

We estimated the reactive nitrogen (Nr) lost per unit food Nr consumed for organic food production in the United States and compared it to conventional production. We used a nitrogen footprint model approach, which accounts for both differences in Nr losses as well as differences in productivity of the two systems. Additionally, we quantified the types of Nr inputs (new versus recycled) that are used in both production systems. We estimated Nr losses from organic crop and animal production to be of comparable magnitude to conventional production losses, with the exception of beef. While Nr losses from organic vegetables are possibly higher (+37%), Nr losses from organic grains, starchy roots, legumes are likely of similar magnitude to conventional production (+7%, +6%, −12%, respectively). Nr losses from organic poultry, pigmeat, and dairy production are also likely comparable to conventional production (+9%, +10%, +12%, respectively), while Nr losses from organic beef production were estimated to be higher (+124%). Due to the high variability and high uncertainty in Nr efficiency in both systems we cannot make conclusions yet on the statistical significance of these potential differences. Conventional production relies heavily on the creation of new Nr (70%-90% of inputs are from new Nr sources like synthetic fertilizer), whereas organic production primarily utilizes already existing Nr (0%-50% of organic inputs are from new Nr sources like leguminous N fixation). Consuming organically produced foods has little impact on an individual's food N footprint but changes the percentage of new versus recycled Nr in the footprint. With the exception of beef, Nr losses from organic production per unit N in product are comparable to conventional production. However, organic production requires the creation of less new Nr, which could reduce global Nr pollution.