Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices

Abstract

Quantitative environmental evaluations of meat, fresh vegetables, and processed protein based on soybeans suggest that the environmental burden of vegetarian foods is usually relatively low when production and processing are considered. The environmental comparison of cheese varieties made from cow milk and directly from lupine and the evaluation of energy inputs in fish protein and vegetable protein also suggest an environmental advantage for vegetarian food. In the evaluation of processed protein food based on soybeans and meat protein, a variety of environmental impacts associated with primary production and processing are a factor 4.4-> 100 to the disadvantage of meat. The comparison of cheese varieties gives differences in specific environmental impacts ranging between a factor 5 and 21. And energy use for fish protein may be up to a factor 14 more than for protein of vegetable origin. Assessment suggests that on average the complete life cycle environmental impact of nonvegetarian meals may be roughly a factor 1.5-2 higher than the effect of vegetarian meals in which meat has been replaced by vegetable protein. Although on average vegetarian diets may well have an environmental advantage, exceptions may also occur. Long-distance air transport, deep-freezing, and some horticultural practices may lead to environmental burdens for vegetarian foods exceeding those for locally produced organic meat.

Evaluating the Water Footprint of the Mediterranean and American Diets

“…Our results stand within the ranges of Vanham et al [13], who found that healthy diets lead to water savings ranging between 3% and 30%. Moreover, our results are consistent with those studies where diets based on the consumption of vegetables and fruits [8,9,[11][12][13][14]28] or totally vegetarian [44,45] have a smaller WF compared to animal products-based or non-vegetarian diets.…”

“…But this message is less likely to be embraced by the general public because of the lack of knowledge about the environmental impacts of current consumption patterns and in particular linked to the diets [54,55]. This study demonstrates how important diets are for consumers and the environment, and supports other studies which argue that diets do matter when referring to sustainability [45,56]. Also, this paper highlights the benefits linked to embracing the Mediterranean diet not just because of its potential health benefits, but also because it is a less water intensive diet.…”

The Organic Food Philosophy: A Qualitative Exploration of the Practices, Values, and Beliefs of Dutch Organic Consumers Within a Cultural–Historical Frame

“…In Western societies, such as The Netherlands, this implies a transition towards less animal-derived proteins (Aiking 2011;Reijnders and Soret 2003) and, in general, more carefully produced food. This transition will not be easy, however, because the relationships between food producers and consumers are bounded by many economic, cultural, and geographic constraints, and all food seems to be embedded in a contested discourse of knowledge claims (Goodman and DuPuis 2002).…”

Are the Dietary Guidelines for Meat, Fat, Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Appropriate for Environmental Sustainability? A Review of the Literature

“…It has been found that meat-centric meals generate on average nine times higher greenhouse gas emissions than plant-based equivalents [5], while specific meat-based products such as beef and cheese cause 10-20 times more environmental impact [87][88][89]. An animal-based diet requires 2.5-5.0 times the energy inputs [7,[90][91][92][93], 2-3 times the water, 13 times the fertilizer, and 1.4 times the pesticide use per calorie produced compared with a plant-based diet [7,93,94]. In European life cycle assessment studies, because of the relatively high meat intake in the typical diet, meat-free scenarios were between 18% and 31% lower in greenhouse gas emissions than the average diet [17,41].…”