Comparison of environmental impacts of individual meals - Does it really make a difference to choose plant-based meals instead of meat-based ones?

Takacs, Berill; Stegemann, Jürgen; Kalea, Anastasia Z.; Borrion, Aiduan

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134782

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 65 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study also provides a much-needed update on Australian attitudes toward vegetarian diets since Lea and Worsley [37]. The findings from this study are especially relevant, given the increasing focus on the relationship between food choices and environmental sustainability [16][17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 87%

“…That said, not all meats (and not all plant-based foods) have an equal impact. Lifecycle assessments of meals from several different cuisines indicated that whole-food vegan meals consistently had the lowest environmental impact [19]. The vegetarian meals had 3 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of vegan meals, and meat-based meals had 14 times the GWP of vegan meals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Vegetarian Diets and the Environmental Impact of Meat-Eating

Rattenbury,

Ruby

2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This pre-registered study investigated beliefs about climate change, the impact of meat consumption on the environment, and willingness to reduce meat intake in a large community sample of Australian social media users (N = 740). It also conceptually replicates Lea and Worsley’s (2003) study on Australians’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers to a vegetarian diet. Although most participants indicated a belief in climate change, only half agreed that agriculture and animal husbandry are a leading cause of climate change. Participants believed reducing and eliminating meat intake to be some of the least effective actions against climate change, contributing to a low willingness to change meat intake. Compared with Leah and Worsley, a significantly greater proportion of participants agreed with most of the benefits (11 of 15) and barriers (12 of 14) to vegetarianism. Both perceived benefits and barriers to vegetarianism significantly predicted participant meat consumption (red meat, poultry, and seafood). Overall, results indicate an increase in the number of people who are aware that meat-eating has environmental impacts, although they believe its impact to be significantly less than other pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., using public transport, recycling things more, and using more energy from renewable sources).

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Vegetarian Diets and the Environmental Impact of Meat-Eating

Rattenbury,

Ruby

2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been widely used for assessment of the environmental impacts of production and/ or packaging, distribution, and consumption of various agri-food products (Schaubroeck et al, 2018;Clark et al, 2022), meals/menus (Calderón et al, 2018;Takacs et al, 2022) and diets (Hallström et al, 2015;Eme et al, 2019;Henriksson et al, 2021). It is recognized as one of the most informative and holistic methods to evaluate environmental impacts associated with agri-food systems (Sala et al, 2017;McAuliffe et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, several studies considered meals based on, or aligned to dietary guidelines, nutritional recommendations (e.g., configuring meals to the Lunch Plate model), or national certification standards for "healthy meals" (Virtanen et al, 2011;Saarinen et al, 2012;García-Herrero et al, 2019;Sameshima et al, 2023). Some studies assumed that the meals being considered are nutritionally adequate (Takacs et al, 2022), while others scaled the meals to have comparable nutritional and/ or caloric values, or to similar quantities of foods (Davis et al, 2010;Virtanen et al, 2011;Ernstoff et al, 2019;Sameshima et al, 2023). Thus, these studies did not compare meals based on their individual calculated nutritional value; rather, the latter was kept constant, and the environmental impacts of these nutritionally comparable meals were assessed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An nLCA approach to support consumer meal decisions: a New Zealand case study of toppings on toast

Majumdar,

McLaren,

van der Pols

et al. 2024

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis study investigates the development and potential application of a nutritional Life Cycle Assessment (nLCA) method to rank meals, using a case study of a “toppings on toast” (ToTs) meal. Methodological issues are investigated in the context of application to support consumers to make more informed food choices at the meal level.MethodsFourteen selected “toppings on toast” (ToTs) commonly consumed in New Zealand (NZ) were evaluated for their climate change impacts and nutritional value using the serve size of each topping as the functional unit (FU). NZ-specific climate change values were obtained from an existing database and recent literature. Nutritional value was calculated using the NRF family of indices – specifically the NRF9.3 and NRF28.3 indices (the latter constructed for this study to include all nutrients in the selected toppings for which reference values were available) and presented in a separate midpoint nutrition impact category. The NRF and climate change scores were assigned quartile-based weights, and the weight of each index score was averaged with that of the climate change score. Based on these average values, the toppings were ranked in two ranking sets (one for each index). In a sensitivity analysis, two alternative reference units were also used (100 g and 100 kcal) to investigate how different FUs influenced the final rankings.ResultsThe results showed that use of one or other NRF index affected the magnitude of the nLCA results; however, the rankings of the ToTs based on the nLCA results did not change much between the two indices. Avocado and peanut butter performed the best (top two ranks), and bacon, butter, and cheese were the poorest performers (bottom two ranks), for both the ranking sets. The toppings which did change ranks mostly moved up or down by only one position. Thus, the results of this case study suggest that the NRF9.3 index is sufficient to determine overall the best, medium, and worst performing toppings in the ToT meal context. However, the results also showed that water-soluble vitamins and unsaturated fats included in the NRF28.3 index contributed significantly to the nutritional scores for most of the toppings and were instrumental in the rank changes for the toppings which are particularly rich in these nutrients.DiscussionThus, for a more diverse range of toppings/meals, an expanded index including these nutrients can generate more nuanced rankings. This study contributes to the nascent but fast-growing nLCA research field, particularly within the meal context. The method used in this case study could be applied in food composition databases, restaurant menus, and websites/apps that provides recipes for meals. However, the study also highlighted the potentially significant variability in climate change and nutritional values in the toppings associated with different production practices, seasonality, and different varieties of the same product. Any future development of nLCA-based meal level rankings should address this variability and communicate it to the consumer.

show abstract

“…Healthy eating and concern for the environment are generating more and more awareness among consumers. For this reason, the food industry shows greater interest in the development of analogues from vegetable proteins that allow the quality characteristics of conventional meat products to be achieved, reducing environmental impact, such as greenhouse gas emissions, acidification, land and consumers’ risk of suffering from cardiovascular diseases [ 1 , 2 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Vegetarian Sausages: Proximal Composition, Instrumental Texture, Rapid Descriptive Sensory Method and Overall Consumer Liking

Carhuancho-Colca,

Silva-Paz,

Elías-Peñafiel

et al. 2024

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present research was to determine if the developed ovo−vegetarian sausage (SO), which was made with 15% chickpea flour, 51% albumin and 34% soy protein concentrate, exhibited improved physicochemical and sensory characteristics compared to vegetarian sausages available on the local market (classic vegan sausage, SC; vegan fine herb sausage, SH; and quinoa sausage, SQ). According to the physicochemical results, the developed sample, SO, presented significant differences (p < 0.05) compared to the others, including higher protein content, lower pH and a higher a* value. Three types of sensory analyses were conducted—flash profile, overall liking and purchase intention (to determine consumers’ willingness to purchase the product)—with the first involving 15 consumers and the second and third involving 60 participants each. Descriptors for each sample were determined using the vocabulary provided by consumers in the flash profile analysis. Descriptors for SO included ‘elastic’, ‘smell of cooked corn’, ‘characteristic flavor’, ‘pasty’, ‘soft’ and ‘pastel color’, contributing to its greater overall liking and purchase intention compared to the others. Through the hierarchical multiple factor analysis, a positive correlation was observed between the texture and sensory descriptors of the flash profile. Conversely, a correlation was found between the physicochemical characteristics (pH, aw, color) and overall liking and purchase intention.

show abstract

Comparison of environmental impacts of individual meals - Does it really make a difference to choose plant-based meals instead of meat-based ones?

Cited by 18 publications

References 65 publications

Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Vegetarian Diets and the Environmental Impact of Meat-Eating

Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Vegetarian Diets and the Environmental Impact of Meat-Eating

An nLCA approach to support consumer meal decisions: a New Zealand case study of toppings on toast

Comparison of Vegetarian Sausages: Proximal Composition, Instrumental Texture, Rapid Descriptive Sensory Method and Overall Consumer Liking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About