Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints

Abstract

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.

A World of Cobenefits: Solving the Global Nitrogen Challenge

“…Removing nitrogen from polluted water can be achieved through wetland and riparian restoration projects, whereby vegetation, soils, and microbes absorb nitrogen fertilizer in runoff and convert it to biomass or harmless dinitrogen gas (Craig et al, 2008). However, not all crops, dairy, or meat are created equally, and research and knowledge on supply chains and life cycle assessments, particularly how different food growing practices influence nitrogen footprints (Leach et al, 2012;Leach et al, 2016), will help consumers make decisions that are consistent with health recommendations and environmental sustainability (Whitmee et al, 2015). This approach has the added benefit of providing habitat that increases biodiversity; benefiting wildlife; and improving fish populations for recreational hunters, anglers, and ecotourists; and storing carbon in wetland soils, which can help to offset carbon emissions at local scales (Craig et al, 2008;Pimentel et al, 1997).…”

Nitrogen footprints: Regional realities and options to reduce nitrogen loss to the environment

“…The N footprint concept has also been applied to individual food products (e.g., N-Label; Leach et al 2016) and to events (e.g., N-Neutrality; Leip et al 2014a). …”

“…There is an ongoing effort to develop the ''N-label,'' which is a label for food products that displays the N footprint to inform consumer purchases. Leach et al (2016) proposed an integrated label combining the carbon, nitrogen, and water footprint of a food product. Although many narrowly focused food sustainability labels are in use but not widely applied, the proposed integrated label could help consumers select products with lower footprints and ultimately minimize the environmental impacts from food production Leach et al 2016).…”

BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Quantifying water use in ruminant production1

“…The adoption of labeling water use estimates of livestock and other food products to enable consumers to compare environmental impacts of food products has been suggested (Galli et al, 2012;Hoekstra, 2015;Leach et al, 2016). According to Wichelns (2015), water use estimates derived using virtual water approaches might not provide reliable information to assist policymakers, industries, or consumers in making appropriate decisions as opportunity costs, water scarcity conditions, socioeconomic implications, and other water use-related benefits are often not considered.…”