The carbon footprint of breastmilk substitutes in comparison with breastfeeding

Abstract

Breastfeeding is one of the foundations of child health, development and survival. Breastmilk substitutes (BMS) are associated with negative influences on breastfeeding practices and subsequent health concerns and, as with all foods, production and consumption of BMS comes with an environmental cost. The carbon footprint (CFP) of production and consumption of BMS was estimated in this study. To illustrate regional differences among the largest producers and consumers, the CFP of BMS production in New Zealand, United States (USA), Brazil and France and the CFP of BMS consumption in United Kingdom (UK), China, Brazil and Vietnam were assessed. The CFP values were then compared with the CFP of breastfeeding arising from production of the additional food needed for breastfeeding mothers to maintain energy balance (approximately 500 kcal per day). The CFP of production was estimated to be 9.2 ± 1.4, 7.0 ± 1.0, 11 ± 2 and 8.4 ± 1.3 kg CO 2 e per kg BMS in New Zealand, USA, Brazil and France, respectively, with the largest contribution (68–82% of the total) coming from production of raw milk. The CFP of consumption, which included BMS production, emissions from transport, production and in-home sterilisation of bottles, and preparation of BMS, was estimated to be 11 ± 1, 14 ± 2, 14 ± 2 and 11 ± 1 kg CO 2 e per kg BMS in UK, China, Brazil and Vietnam, respectively. Comparison of breastfeeding with feeding BMS showed a lower CFP from breastfeeding in all countries studied. However, the results were sensitive to the method used to allocate emissions from raw milk production on different dairy processing co-products (i.e. BMS, cream, cheese and lactose). Using alternative allocation methods still resulted in lower CFP from breastfeeding, but only slightly for UK, Brazil and Vietnam. Care is also needed when interpreting findings about products that are functionally different as regards child health and development.

Support for breastfeeding is an environmental imperative

“…Costs to the environment include paper use, postage, plastic waste, and transport costs at multiple stages in the production, marketing, and sale of breastmilk substitutes (fig 1). 2…”

“…Environmental impact of production and consumption of formula milk and breastfeeding (adapted with permission from Karlsson et al2)…”

“…As powdered cows’ milk is nutritionally inadequate for a developing infant, formula is supplemented with additives such as palm, coconut, rapeseed, and sunflower oils; fungal, algal, and fish oils; and minerals and vitamins. Although it remains unclear whether these supplements are nutritionally and developmentally adequate, their production has an undeniable effect on the environment 2. Nestlé’s recent temporary suspension from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil highlights potential deficiencies in the culture of sustainability in global food 1213…”

“…Conversations around the complex subject of infant feeding have invariably focused on health outcomes, but recent studies have highlighted the environmental cost of decades of disinvestment in services to support breastfeeding. Breastfeeding uses few resources and produces minimal or zero waste 12. The associated infant and maternal health outcomes produce healthier populations that use fewer healthcare resources 34.…”

“…The associated infant and maternal health outcomes produce healthier populations that use fewer healthcare resources 34. The production of unnecessary infant and toddler formulas exacerbates environmental damage and should be a matter of increasing global concern 125…”